9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 685 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - settlement has been reached already - HELD THAT - Having gone through the material on record, it appears that in respect of the impugned order dated 7.12.2019, a specific settlement has taken place in writing which settlement has been produced on record which is reflecting on page-51 which is signed by the parties and the learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has confirmed this fact of settlement in true sense. Additionally, it is also visible from the record that on page-59 of the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 on oath, confirming the terms of the settlement. The present application stands allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 7.12.2019 by the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. 2. Settlement between the parties and its legal implications. 3. Application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the context of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Judicial precedents and principles applicable to the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of the Impugned Order: The applicant sought to quash the impugned order dated 7.12.2019, passed by the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot, in Criminal Case No.10779 of 2016. The applicant argued that the order should be set aside due to a subsequent settlement between the parties. The court, after reviewing the material on record and the settlement agreement, decided to quash the impugned order, thereby granting the relief sought by the applicant. 2. Settlement Between the Parties: The applicant and respondent No.2 reached an amicable settlement, documented in a memorandum of settlement dated 12.6.2020. The applicant paid ?5,21,000 to respondent No.2, who agreed to withdraw the complaint and consent to quash the order of conviction. Respondent No.2 confirmed this settlement through an affidavit, indicating no undue pressure and free will. The court recognized this settlement as genuine and took it into account while making its decision. 3. Application of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: The application was filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which grants the High Court inherent powers to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The court cited a decision by a coordinate bench, emphasizing that in cases of genuine settlement, the court should allow the parties to compound the offense. The court found that the settlement between the parties justified the use of its inherent powers to quash the conviction order. 4. Judicial Precedents and Principles: The court referred to several judicial precedents and principles to support its decision. It highlighted the Supreme Court's observations on the relative terms of 'general law' and 'special law', and how Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) allows for the compounding of offenses. The court noted that the offense under Section 138 of the NI Act, while not an economic offense per se, falls within the ambit of offenses against property and can be compounded at any stage, even after the dismissal of a revision application. The court also emphasized the importance of providing justice at the doorstep and the wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. Conclusion: The court allowed the application, quashing the impugned order dated 7.12.2019. It recognized the settlement between the parties as genuine and exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. The court directed the Registry to communicate the order to the concerned trial court promptly.
|
