2018 (8) TMI 1407 - SC - Indian Laws

Settlement of matter by parties themselves - closure of matter before Court - Conviction u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - rigorous imprisonment for one year with amount of compensation - an affidavit has been filed by the first respondent stating that the matter has been settled at the intervention of the family members and he has no objection if appropriate orders are passed by the Court closing the matter. Held that - Having regard to the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the parties ought to be allowed to settle the matter - The offence, therefore, is compounded in terms of the settlement - the order of conviction and the sentence imposed is set aside.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Settlement between the parties after conviction and sentence.
3. Compounding of the offence and setting aside of conviction and sentence.

Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The accused-appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Additionally, he was directed to pay a sum of &8377; 3,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The order of conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court in appeal and revision.

2. Settlement between the parties after conviction and sentence:
The first respondent filed an affidavit stating that the matter had been settled at the intervention of family members. He expressed no objection to appropriate orders being passed by the Court to close the matter. After hearing the counsels for both parties and considering the affidavit, the Court decided that the parties should be allowed to settle the matter. Consequently, the Court ordered the settlement.

3. Compounding of the offence and setting aside of conviction and sentence:
In light of the settlement between the parties, the offence was compounded. As a result, the order of conviction and the sentence imposed were set aside. The accused-appellant was ordered to be set at liberty unless his custody was required in any other case. The appeal was disposed of based on the settlement between the parties.

This judgment highlights the importance of parties being allowed to settle a matter even after conviction and sentence, leading to the compounding of the offence and the setting aside of the original conviction and sentence.