2024 (12) TMI 521 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - compounding of offence on the basis of compromise deed - complainant-respondent have settled the matter - HELD THAT - Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner - accused and the complainant-respondent have settled the matter and the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence therefore this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accusedpetitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that Offences to be compoundable Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. At this point it would be apt to clarify that in view of the non-obstante clause the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 is controlled by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) will not be applicable in the strict sense since the latter is meant for the specified offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860. In K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi 2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C. compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. Since in the instant case the petitioner-accused after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act has compromised the matter with the complainant prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon ble Apex Court - in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court the application is allowed and matter is ordered to be compounded. The present matter is ordered to be compounded and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.07.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Anni District Kullu H.P. in Case No. 14-3 of 2016 and affirmed by learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr H.P. vide judgment dated 06.03.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2018 are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds if any stand discharged. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition filed under Section 442 of BNSS against judgment of conviction and sentence.
2. Compounding of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Settlement between the petitioner-accused and the complainant.
4. Imposition of compounding fee.

Analysis:
The petitioner-accused filed a petition under Section 442 of BNSS challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. The case arose from a bounced cheque issued by the petitioner to the complainant. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to imprisonment and compensation. The petitioner appealed against this decision, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to compound the offense based on a compromise deed with the complainant.

The complainant, present in court, confirmed the settlement with the petitioner and expressed no objection to compounding the offense. The court, after considering the settlement and the provisions of Section 147 of the Act, accepted the prayer for compounding. Referring to legal precedents, including Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, the court emphasized the authority to compound offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment of conviction and sentence were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted.

Regarding the imposition of a compounding fee, the court cited guidelines from K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, suggesting a graded scheme for imposing costs based on the stage of the proceedings. Considering the financial condition of the petitioner, the court directed a token compounding fee of Rs. 2,500 to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority. Additionally, the court ordered the release of the petitioner from custody, as the conviction and sentence were set aside.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashed the judgment of conviction and sentence, directed the payment of a token compounding fee, and ordered the release of the petitioner from jail. The matter was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending applications.