9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 728 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - Seeking compounding of offence at belated stage - compromise between the parties - insufficiency of funds - section 147 of 'N.I. Act' would have an overriding effect on section 320 Cr.P.C. or not? - conviction nullified by the High Court noticing subsequent compromise of the case by the contesting parties - HELD THAT - It is well settled that inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It is also well settled that if an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its inherent power under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy. Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. include powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings pending before the High Court or any Courts subordinate to it and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, depending upon the facts of a given case. The court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provisions of the Code. However, such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution - In the instant case, it is true that this Court had dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the court below but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that this Court has the power to intervene in exercise of the powers vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. only with a view to do the substantial justice or to avoid miscarriage and the spirit of the compromise arrived at between the parties. This is perfectly justified and legal too. In the instant case, the petitioner is invoking the inherent power as vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of the revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C. - the petitioner has attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. The embargo of sub section 6 of section 320 Cr.P.C. as pointed out by learned AGA would not come in the way so far as the relief prayed in this petition - In the instant case, the problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute, furthermore, the arguments on behalf of the opposite parties on the fact that unlike Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court. The court is inclined to hold accordingly only because there is no formal embargo in section 147 of the N.I. Act. This principle would not help any convict in any other law where other applicable independent provisions are existing as the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act is distinctly different from the normal offences made punishable under Chapter XVII of IPC (i.e. the offences qua property). The present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties to this litigation out of court.
Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Quashing of the sentence of one year awarded to the petitioner. 3. Maintainability of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of a criminal revision petition. 4. Application of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act overriding Section 320 Cr.P.C. 5. Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compounding of Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioner issued two cheques of ?1,00,000 each, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one-year simple imprisonment and a fine of ?3,00,000. The petitioner and the complainant later entered into a settlement, agreeing to pay the remaining amount of ?2,00,000 via a demand draft. The court acknowledged the compromise and referred to the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, which provided guidelines for compounding offences under Section 138, emphasizing the compensatory nature of the N.I. Act over its punitive aspects. 2. Quashing of the Sentence of One Year Awarded to the Petitioner: The petitioner sought to quash the one-year sentence based on the compromise reached with the complainant. The court noted that the primary object of Section 138 is compensatory, and the punitive element is secondary. The court referred to M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited vs. Kanchan Mehta, which held that the offence under Section 138 is primarily a civil wrong and can be compounded at any stage, even without the complainant's consent if the court is satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated. 3. Maintainability of a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after Dismissal of a Criminal Revision Petition: The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of a criminal revision petition. The court examined whether such a petition is maintainable and referred to the case of Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh, which held that petitions invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained if special circumstances are made out, even after the dismissal of a revision application. 4. Application of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Overriding Section 320 Cr.P.C.: The court analyzed the applicability of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, which allows for the compounding of offences notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., including Section 320. The court emphasized that Section 147 has an overriding effect, allowing the compounding of offences under the N.I. Act at any stage, including after the dismissal of a revision application. 5. Inherent Powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court discussed the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which include quashing FIRs, investigations, or any criminal proceedings to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of the court. The court referred to the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, which laid down the twin objectives of preventing abuse of the process of the court and securing the ends of justice. The court held that it is justified to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the conviction and sentence in light of the compromise reached between the parties. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in Complaint Case No.515 of 2016. The petitioner was treated as acquitted on account of the compounding of the offence with the complainant. The court also directed the petitioner to pay costs of ?5000 to the State and released the deposited amount of ?1,00,000 in favor of the complainant.
|
