9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (1) TMI 729 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - challenge to conviction and sentence - compromise reached between the parties - invocation of inherent powers of the High Court to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the revisional stage - HELD THAT - It is well settled that inherent power of the Court can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigants and nor a specific remedy as provided by the statute. It is also well settled that if an effective, alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its inherent power, especially when the Revision Petitioner may not have availed of that remedy - This Court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its power. These powers are neither limited, nor curtailed by any other provision of the Code or Act. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. In the instant case, it is true that the appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was upheld by the appellate court, but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that this Court has power to intervene in exercise of its power only with a view to do the substantial justice or to avoid a miscarriage and the spirit of compromise arrived at between the parties. This is perfectly justified and legal too. In the instant case, the Revision Petitioner is invoking the inherent power of this court after dismissal of the appeal confirming his conviction and sentence - In the case of Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni 1997 (1) TMI 529 - SUPREME COURT , Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the applicant is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order was not correct, the High Court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercising its power. Section 147 of NI Act begins with a non obstante clause and such clause is being used in a provision to communicate that the provision shall prevail despite anything to the contrary in any other or different legal provisions. So, in light of the compass provided, a dispute in the nature of complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act, can be settled by way of compromise irrespective of any other legislation including Cr.P.C. In general and section 320 (1)(2) or (6) of the Cr.P.C. in particular - Merely because the litigation has reached to a revisional stage or that even beyond that stage, the nature and character of the offence would not change automatically and it would be wrong to hold that at revisional stage, the nature of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be treated as if the same is falling under table-II of Section 320 IPC. The court is inclined to hold accordingly only because there is no formal embargo in section 147 of the N.I. Act. This principle would not help any convict in any other law where other applicable independent provisions are existing as the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act is distinctly different from the normal offences made punishable under Chapter XVII of IPC (i.e. the offences qua property). Conclusion - The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be annulled based on the compromise reached between the parties. The inherent powers of the court were appropriately invoked to secure the ends of justice. The conviction and sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.366 of 2013 stands annulled as this Court intends, otherwise to secure the ends of justice - the present Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Nullification of Conviction and Sentence Based on Compromise
Issue 2: Invocation of Inherent Powers for Compounding at Revisional Stage
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The judgment emphasizes the importance of resolving cheque dishonour cases through amicable settlements, reflecting the compensatory nature of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and highlights the court's role in facilitating such resolutions even at advanced stages of litigation.
|
