2023 (7) TMI 710 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - compounding of offences - amicable settlement was arrived at - HELD THAT - Hon ble The Supreme Court in the case of DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT has held that in case of dishonour of cheque, accused convicted, there is no stage prescribed for compounding of offence under Section 147 of the Act and it was observed that It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. In the peculiarity of facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the judgment in Damodar S.Prabhu, the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer for waiving off the compounding fee, but considering the mitigating circumstances of the petitioner, the same is reduced and she is ordered to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- as costs, with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority on or before 30.07.2023. The judgment of conviction/order of sentence recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court are hereby set aside and petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against her. The revision petition stands disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the subsequent appeal dismissal.

Details of the judgment:

1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for issuing a dishonored cheque. The complainant proved the case against the accused, leading to conviction by the trial court and dismissal of the appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge.

2. The parties reached an amicable settlement facilitated by a Mediator, resolving the dispute. The petitioner, a widow with financial hardships, sought to waive the compounding fee due to her circumstances.

3. Referring to relevant Supreme Court judgments, the High Court acknowledged the nature of the offense under Section 138 as primarily civil and compoundable. The court emphasized the parties' right to compound the offense to avoid prolonged litigation.

4. Citing precedents, the High Court permitted the petitioner to compound the offense, setting aside the conviction and ordering acquittal. However, the court reduced the compounding fee to Rs.10,000, considering the petitioner's circumstances.

5. The revision petition was disposed of accordingly, with the petitioner acquitted of the charges. The Haryana State Legal Services Authority was directed to receive the costs and provide a compliance report within a specified timeframe.