9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 135 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - settlement of disputes between the parties - compounding of offences u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - After having taken note of the provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.PC and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court of Allahabad in Rishi Mohan Srivastava s case 2021 (8) TMI 728 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held 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 has been further held by the Allahabad High Court that court can always take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same by exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Needless to say, the operation or effect of a general Act can be curtailed by special Act even if a general Act contains a non obstante clause and as such, provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not come in the way in recording the compromise or in compounding the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act. To the contrary, provisions of section 147 of the Act though start with a non obstante clause but have overriding effect on the provisions contained under section 320 Cr.P.C. This Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made in the instant petition and accordingly, same is allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Quashing of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate courts. 3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in light of the compromise between the parties. 4. Legal precedents regarding compounding of offences post-conviction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compounding of the Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioner sought to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a compromise reached with the respondent-complainant. The court acknowledged that the entire compensation amount awarded by the trial court had been paid to the respondent-complainant. The court noted that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act allows for the compounding of offences under Section 138, even post-conviction. 2. Quashing of the Conviction and Sentence: The petitioner requested the quashing of the conviction and sentence (six months’ simple imprisonment and compensation of Rs. 2,25,000) awarded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate courts. The court observed that the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the respondent-complainant, and the entire compensation amount had been paid. The court referred to various judgments, including those from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which support the quashing of convictions based on post-conviction compromises. 3. Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Light of the Compromise: The court was invited to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the conviction and sentence in light of the compromise. The court referred to the judgment in "Geeta Devi v. Surinder Singh and Anr," where it was held that the court has ample powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to compound offences even after the accused has been convicted. The court also cited the judgment in "Rishi Mohan Srivastava v. State of UP and Anr," where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to annul a conviction based on a compromise. 4. Legal Precedents Regarding Compounding of Offences Post-Conviction: The court extensively referred to legal precedents that support the compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even after conviction. The court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in "K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi," which held that offences under Section 138 can be compounded post-conviction in light of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court also referenced the judgment in "Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.," which affirmed the compounding of offences under Section 138 post-conviction. Conclusion: The court concluded that there was no impediment to accepting the petitioner's request to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24.6.2013/16.7.2013 passed by the learned JMFC-III, Shimla, were annulled in terms of the compromise reached between the parties, and the petitioner was acquitted of the notice of accusation. The petition was disposed of along with any pending applications.
|
