2019 (1) TMI 446 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - whether a compromise, at this stage, can be permitted to be effected between the parties where the petitioner has been charged under Section 138 of the Act? Held that - 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 power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court - Though, such power is required to be exercised with circumspection and in cases which do not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc. Since, the petitioner has paid the entire compensation amount, therefore, quashing of the complaint initiated at the instance of complainant/respondent would be a step towards securing the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court, especially, when the petitioner is facing pangs and suffered agony of protracted trial and thereafter appeal/revision for the last more than four years and has paid the entire compensation amount. The impugned substantive sentence of simple imprisonment imposed in this case shall stand modified and substituted in lieu of the compensation amount of ₹ 2,70,000/- that stands already deposited/paid by the petitioner - amount deposited before the Registry of this Court be released in favour of the respondent/complainant by remitting the same to his bank account - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
2. Compounding of the case at a later stage
3. Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
4. Interpretation of legal principles for quashing criminal proceedings
5. Application of recent judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
6. Modification of substantive sentence to compensation amount

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment and pay a lumpsum compensation to the complainant. The petitioner appealed the decision, which was subsequently dismissed, leading to the filing of a revision petition.

2. The issue of compounding the case at a later stage arises when the petitioner, during the court proceedings, paid a sum of money to the respondent and requested to compound the case. The question raised was whether a compromise could be permitted at this stage, especially when the petitioner was charged under Section 138 of the Act.

3. The judgment delves into the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, emphasizing that the court has the authority to accept a settlement between parties and quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the court's process. The court highlighted the need to exercise such powers judiciously, particularly in cases not involving heinous offenses.

4. Legal principles for quashing criminal proceedings were interpreted based on a three-judge bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The judgment outlined various principles under Section 482, emphasizing the court's role in securing justice and preventing abuse of the legal system. It differentiated between serious offenses and civil disputes, providing guidelines for evaluating whether a complaint should be quashed based on settlement.

5. The judgment extensively referred to recent judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such as Parbatbhai Aahir, Kanchan Mehta, Bhangu Trading Co., and N.P. Murugesan cases. These judgments provided insights into the nature of offenses, the compensatory aspect of Section 138, and the discretion of the court to quash proceedings based on settlements and compensations.

6. Finally, the judgment modified the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment to the compensation amount already paid by the petitioner. The court ordered the release of the deposited amount to the respondent and disposed of the revision petition accordingly, considering the holistic view of the matter and the legal precedents cited in the analysis.