2022 (3) TMI 549 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - panchayati compromise - appeal has not been finally adjudicated and is still pending and during the pendency of the appeal, compromise has been effected between the parties, as per which, all the disputes between petitioner and respondent No.1 have been resolved - HELD THAT - Keeping in view the law laid down in the above said judgment, more so, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAMGOPAL, KRISHNAPPA ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, STATE OF KARNATAKA 2021 (9) TMI 1358 - SUPREME COURT , the relevant parameters for consideration as laid down in the said judgment, would be considered by this Court. Firstly, the occurrence which has been involved in the present petition can be categorized as purely personal/criminal act of private nature. Secondly, in the present case, there is no injury caused to any person and complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881, has been registered on account of a monetary dispute, which has been settled and the allegations in the case do not exhibit an element of mental depravity or commission of an offence of such a serious nature. The acquittal in the present case would not override public interest. Thirdly, since the allegations in the complaint show that there was only a monetary dispute, which has now been settled, it is immaterial that the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court. Fourthly, compromise is without any coercion or compulsion and has been entered into willingly and voluntarily. Fifthly, the occurrence in the present case took place in the year 2011 and there is nothing to show that any untoward incident had taken place after the same. Sixthly, the compromise effected between the parties would help in bringing out peace and harmony among the parties. Seventhly, the object of administration of the criminal justice system would remain unaffected on acceptance of the said amicable settlement between the parties and/or resultant acquittal of the petitioners. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT had observed that in case, compromise has been effected at the stage as in the present case, 15% of the cheque amount would have to be deposited by the petitioner. The present petition is allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Judicial Magistrate.
3. Compromise between the parties and its legal implications.
4. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing proceedings based on the compromise.
5. Legal precedents supporting quashing of criminal proceedings post-conviction.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner sought the quashing of Criminal Complaint No.27 dated 19.07.2011, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to the dishonor of a cheque amounting to ?2,45,000/-. The Judicial Magistrate had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ?5000/-, with an additional one month of rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of the fine.

2. Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence by the Judicial Magistrate:
The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gidderbaha, after considering the evidence and documents on record, convicted and sentenced the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The petitioner was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fined ?5000/-, with an additional one month of rigorous imprisonment in case of default in payment of the fine. The petitioner appealed against this order, and during the pendency of the appeal, warrants of arrest were issued due to non-appearance.

3. Compromise Between the Parties and its Legal Implications:
During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was effected between the parties on 24.11.2021, wherein the petitioner agreed to pay ?3,00,000/- to the complainant. The terms of the compromise included the complainant's agreement to withdraw all claims and not file any further cases against the petitioner or his family. The compromise was genuine and without any coercion, undue influence, or pressure, and aimed at bringing peace and harmony between the parties.

4. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Quashing Proceedings Based on the Compromise:
The court considered the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings based on the compromise. The court referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Ramgopal & Anr. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh" and other relevant judgments, which discussed the power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings even post-conviction if the compromise is genuine and voluntary.

5. Legal Precedents Supporting Quashing of Criminal Proceedings Post-Conviction:
The court referred to several legal precedents, including "Ram Parkash and others Vs. State of Punjab and others," "Baghel Singh Versus State of Punjab," and "Kuldeep Singh vs. Vijay Kumar and another," which supported the quashing of criminal proceedings based on a genuine compromise. The judgments emphasized that the High Court has the inherent power to quash proceedings to secure the ends of justice, even if the trial has concluded or the appeal stands dismissed.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal complaint, judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, as well as the order of warrant of arrest, based on the genuine compromise between the parties. The quashing was subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the cheque amount (?36,750/-) within one month with the High Court Lawyers' Welfare Fund. Failure to deposit the amount would result in the dismissal of the petition. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of in light of the judgment.