2020 (11) TMI 427 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - It is argued that the law regarding compounding of offences under the N.I. Act is very clear and is no more res integra and the offences under the N.I. Act can be compounded even at any stage of the proceedings - HELD THAT - It is clear that the parties have already entered into a settlement outside the court and the entire amount as directed by the learned trial Court duly affirmed by the appellate Court has been paid to the complainant. The complainant has also made a categorical statement before the Court and he has also filed an affidavit to the aforesaid effect in the present revision. It is pointed out that the entire amount of ₹ 65,000/- has already been paid in cash to the complainant. This Court deems it appropriate to permit the parties to compound the offence on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. However, in terms of the Guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the accused/revisionist has not appeared before the Court and has not taken effective steps to compound the offence at initial stage, thus following the Guidelines, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the compounding of offence subject to payment of cost at the rate of 15% of the cheque amount to be paid to the complainant. Thus, in the aforesaid terms it is directed that if the accused/revisionst pays a cost of 15% of the cheque amount to the complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of this order, this Court permits the compounding of offence to the parties. If such an amount towards the cost is being paid to the complainant then the judgment and conviction dated 16.04.2018 passed by the trial Court duly affirmed by the appellate court is set aside. The revisionist is acquitted from all the charges. He is in custody, he be released forthwith and set free, if not requires in any other case. The application for suspension of sentence of the revisionist has rendered infructuous - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay.
2. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Settlement and compounding of the offence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Condonation of Delay:
The criminal revision was heard via video conferencing due to COVID-19 restrictions. The petitioner filed I.A. No.19130/2020 for condonation of delay. The delay was attributed to the non-appearance of the counsel in the trial court, which was unknown to the petitioner until his arrest. The petitioner promptly obtained the judgment copy and filed the revision petition. The court allowed the application, condoning the 27-month delay, recognizing the reasons as bona fide.

2. Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Guna, sentenced to 4 months rigorous imprisonment, and fined ?65,000. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge Guna. The petitioner did not challenge the conviction but highlighted that a settlement had been reached, and the entire amount directed by the lower courts had been paid to the complainant.

3. Settlement and Compounding of the Offence:
An application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act was filed, indicating that the parties had settled the matter outside the court, with the complainant receiving ?65,000 and expressing willingness to compound the offence. The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana, K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammad, and Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., which support the compounding of offences under the N.I. Act at any stage of the proceedings. The court noted that the settlement was genuine and allowed the compounding of the offence.

The court followed the guidelines from the Supreme Court's judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu, which prescribe costs for compounding at various stages. Since the petitioner did not seek compounding at an earlier stage, the court imposed a cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The petitioner was directed to pay this amount to the complainant within 15 days. Upon payment, the conviction and sentence would be set aside, and the petitioner would be acquitted and released if not required in any other case.

Conclusion:
The revision was disposed of with the direction to pay 15% of the cheque amount as a cost for compounding. The application for suspension of sentence became infructuous due to the compounding order. An E-copy of the order was directed to be provided to the applicant and sent to the trial court for compliance, to be treated as a certified copy for practical purposes.