2023 (6) TMI 892 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - compounding of offences - amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties - whether this Court can quash the judgments of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the courts below on the basis of amicable settlement arrived inter-se parties while exercising power under Section 482 of CRPC or not? HELD THAT - This Court vide judgment passed in titled Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma 2017 (3) TMI 1891 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT , while relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional Courts has already held that court, while exercising power under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, court can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where accused stands convicted. The Hon ble Apex Court in K. Subramanian Vs. R.Rajathi 2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT has categorically held that in view of the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act, read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C, compromise arrived inter se the parties, can be accepted and offence committed under Section 138 of the Act, can be ordered to be compounded. This Court finds that court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. In the aforesaid judgment Hon ble Apex Court has categorically held that High Court having regard to the nature of offence and the fact that parties have settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC., even if the offense are non-compoundable, however while doing so, high court is under obligation to evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter, adopt a pragmatic approach to ensure that the felony even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. Since in the case at hand, petitioner-accused and complainant have resolved their dispute amicably under OTS Scheme, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the person behind bars pursuant to judgment of conviction recorded against him. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer made by the parties for quashing of Complaint (i.e Registration No. 222/2017) as well as consequential proceedings arising out of it. The present petition is disposed of as compromised, as a result of which, Complaint No. 290-I/2017 (Registration No. 222/2017) as well as judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.7.2018 and 23.6.2021, passed by the courts below are quashed and set-aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Quashing of judgments of conviction and order of sentence based on amicable settlement.
3. Power of the court under Section 482 Cr.PC to compound offences post-conviction.

Summary:

Compounding of the Offence:
The petitioner, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought to set aside the conviction after settling the matter with the complainant under a One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme. The respondent bank acknowledged the settlement and had no objection to the petitioner being acquitted.

Quashing of Judgments Based on Settlement:
The primary issue was whether the court could quash the judgments of conviction and order of sentence based on the amicable settlement under Section 482 Cr.PC. The court referred to previous judgments, including those by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which held that courts could compound offences even after conviction if the parties have settled the dispute amicably.

Power of the Court Under Section 482 Cr.PC:
The court reiterated its power under Section 482 Cr.PC to compound offences post-conviction, emphasizing that such power should be exercised considering the nature of the offence, the voluntary nature of the compromise, and the conduct of the accused. The court cited several precedents, including the cases of Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma and K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, which supported the compounding of offences post-conviction.

Conclusion:
Given the amicable settlement between the parties and the payment of the settled amount, the court found no impediment in quashing the complaint and the judgments of conviction. Consequently, the petition was disposed of as compromised, and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.