2022 (4) TMI 643 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - compromise has been arrived at between the parties and payment has been made - Section 138 of N.I. Act - HELD THAT - It reveals that complainant has expressed that without any threat, inducement or pressure, she voluntarily entered into a compromise with the applicant with a view to improve their mutual relationships and to foster tranquility and peace between them as also in the society. As per the law laid down in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , the applicant is required to pay 15% (application for compounding of offence has been filed in this case) of the cheque amount by way of cost to be deposited in pursuance of the compromise. This offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, is compoundable with the permission of this Court, as per the law laid down in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu and this Court does not find any reason for refusing the prayer of the complainant as well as applicant for granting permission to compound the offence. Hence, permission is granted. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside - revision allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act
2. Compromise between parties
3. Permission for compounding the offence

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a revision against the judgment convicting and sentencing them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court noted that a compromise had been reached between the parties, with a partial payment made in cash and a post-dated cheque for the remaining amount. Citing relevant legal precedents, the court observed that the complainant voluntarily entered into the compromise without any coercion, aiming to restore harmony and peace. The court held that the offence under Section 138 is compoundable with the court's permission, as per established legal principles.

2. Emphasizing the need for court permission to compound the offence, the High Court referred to the requirement of paying 15% of the cheque amount as costs, as per the law laid down in previous judgments. The court highlighted that the accused, in this case, had made the application for compounding during the revision before the High Court. The court, following the precedents, granted permission for compounding the offence, setting aside the impugned orders of the lower courts.

3. In line with the Supreme Court's directions, the High Court ordered the immediate release of the applicant from jail, provided they were not required in any other case. Additionally, if the fine amount had been deposited by the applicant, it was to be refunded. The court directed the office to send a copy of the order to the trial court for necessary compliance. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and all related applications were disposed of in light of the compromise and permission for compounding the offence.