9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 843 - HC - Indian LawsCompounding of Offences - power of Court to compound offences - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - This is not a case wherein offence for which the petitioner has been charged can strictly be termed to be an offence against the State. On the other hand, continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him in case the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are not set aside. 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. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) 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 power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Delay in filing the revision petition under the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Settlement between the parties leading to a request for quashing the criminal proceedings. 3. Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 147 of the Act. 4. Application of legal principles from the Supreme Court judgment in Narinder Singh's case. Issue 1: Delay in filing the revision petition under the Negotiable Instruments Act The High Court, after hearing both counsels, found that the delay in filing the appeal was genuine and not intentional. The Court considered the settlement between the parties and the bonafide nature of the delay, leading to the allowance of the application and condonation of the delay in filing the revision petition. Issue 2: Settlement between the parties leading to a request for quashing the criminal proceedings Both parties jointly represented to the Court that they had amicably settled the matter. The complainant/respondent expressed no desire to pursue the case further. The Court observed that the offence charged against the petitioner was not strictly against the State and that continuing the criminal case would cause oppression and injustice to the petitioner. The Court noted that quashing the complaint would serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process. Issue 3: Exercise of inherent powers by the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 147 of the Act The High Court invoked its powers under Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Cr.P.C., as well as under Section 147 of the Act. It cited the Supreme Court's guidance on exercising such powers, emphasizing that they should be used sparingly and with caution. The Court highlighted the distinction between offences of a civil nature, which could be quashed upon settlement, and heinous offences that impact society. Issue 4: Application of legal principles from the Supreme Court judgment in Narinder Singh's case The High Court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Narinder Singh's case, outlining principles for exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that the possibility of conviction, the nature of the offence, and the timing of the settlement were crucial factors. It reiterated that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be used judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offences like murder or dacoity. The Court applied these principles to the present case and ultimately set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, acquitting the petitioner and ordering their release from jail.
|
