2021 (12) TMI 1007 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - during the pendency of the appeal, there was compromise which had been arrived at between the parties - major part of amount agreed, was duly paid - HELD THAT - It is apparent that both the contesting parties are ad idem that the compromise has been effected between the parties without any pressure, threat or undue influence and the terms of the said compromise have been duly complied with. The compromise would go a long way in maintaining the peace and harmony between the parties and thus, a prayer has been made to the Court for compounding the offence in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 320 (6) Cr.P.C. Since the offence relating to dishonour of cheque has a compensatory profile and is required to have precedence over punitive mechanism, therefore, the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision.
2. Challenge to the judgments of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Compromise between the parties and its effect on the criminal revision.
4. Legal provisions and previous judgments relevant to the case.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the criminal revision:
In CRM-8273-2021, the delay of 588 days in filing the criminal revision was condoned based on the reasons stated in the application supported by an affidavit. The application was allowed, indicating that the delay was justified and acceptable under the circumstances.

2. Challenge to the judgments of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Act for dishonoring a cheque and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The challenge was made against the judgments of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, leading to the filing of the criminal revision.

3. Compromise between the parties and its effect on the criminal revision:
During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was reached between the parties through the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The terms included the petitioner paying an amount to the complainant in installments. The complainant submitted an additional affidavit confirming the compromise and expressing no objection to suspending the sentence or acquitting the petitioner. Both parties affirmed the genuineness of the compromise, emphasizing its role in maintaining peace and harmony.

4. Legal provisions and previous judgments relevant to the case:
The Court referred to Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and Section 320(6) of the Cr.P.C. in considering the compounding of the offense. Previous judgments, including one in CRR no.390 of 2017, were cited to support the decision to allow the criminal revision based on a valid compromise. The Court emphasized the compensatory nature of offenses under Section 138 of the Act and the importance of upholding genuine compromises to promote reconciliation between parties.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the judgments of conviction, subject to the petitioner depositing a specified amount within a given timeframe. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the revision. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the significance of the genuine compromise in resolving the legal dispute between the parties.