2020 (1) TMI 884 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - compounding of offences - petitioner accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - This Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court can proceed to compound the offence while exercising power under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as per the guidelines framed by the Hon ble Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT . Hon ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case has categorically held that Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. Instant matter is ordered to be compounded and judgments passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside - The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be discharged - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Criminal Revision petition against judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Appeal against conviction and sentence upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge.
3. Settlement between parties during the pendency of the petition.
4. Compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision petition challenging the judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was accused of issuing a dishonored cheque amounting to ?58,000 to the complainant, leading to legal proceedings. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment along with a compensation of ?70,000.

2. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed against this conviction to the Additional Sessions Judge, who upheld the judgment of the trial court. Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking acquittal and the quashing of the lower courts' judgments.

3. During the proceedings, the parties reached a settlement to resolve the dispute amicably. The petitioner agreed to release the compensation amount deposited with the trial court in favor of the complainant. In return, the complainant agreed to have no objection to the petitioner's request for compounding the offence.

4. Considering the settlement between the parties, the High Court exercised its power under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound the offence. Citing the guidelines from the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., the court quashed the judgments of the lower courts, acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Act, and ordered the release of the deposited amount in favor of the complainant.

This detailed analysis outlines the legal proceedings, the settlement between the parties, and the court's decision to compound the offence based on the mutual agreement, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused and the disposal of the petition.