2018 (6) TMI 900 - HC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - whether the Court in such like cases can set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence where the petitioner has been charged under Section 138 of the Act? - Held that - Since, the petitioner has already paid the entire compensation amount, therefore, quashing of the complaint initiated at the instance of complainant/respondent No.1 would be a step towards securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court. This is not a case wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can stricto sensu be termed to be an offence against the State. Therefore, this is a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence - This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate powers have been conferred upon it not only under sections 397 read with Section 401 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. but also under Section 147 of the Act for accepting the settlement entered into between the parties and to quash the proceedings arising out of the proceedings, which have consequently culminated into a settlement. This is a fit case to exercise the powers not only under Sections 397, 401 and Section 482 of the Code, but even under Section 147 of the Act - the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Setting aside a judgment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on settlement and quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought setting aside of a judgment convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner had already deposited the compensation amount before the first Appellate Court. Both parties expressed interest only in the compensation amount. The court observed that the offence charged was not against the State, and continuing the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the petitioner. The court noted its powers under Sections 397, 401, 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the Act to accept settlements and prevent abuse of court process.

The court referred to a Supreme Court decision outlining principles for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It highlighted that the court's inherent power aims to secure justice and prevent abuse of process. The court emphasized that the decision to quash a complaint based on settlement depends on the facts of each case. The judgment differentiated between serious criminal offences and those with a civil dispute element. Economic offences impacting the state's financial wellbeing may not be quashed. In this case, since the petitioner had paid the compensation, quashing the complaint was deemed just and prevented court process abuse.

Based on the legal principles and the specifics of the case, the court found it appropriate to exercise its powers under Sections 397, 401, 482 of the Cr.P.C., and Section 147 of the Act. Consequently, the judgments convicting the petitioner were set aside, and he was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The court directed the release of the deposited amount to the complainant. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending applications.