9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 361 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - amicable settlement of matter - compounding of offence - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the complainant has received Rs.1,30,000/- from the applicant/convict, as full and final settlement of the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act and the parties have amicably settled the matter, coupled with the fact that the complainant has no objection in case the accused-respondent is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the parties for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon ble Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the CrPC which states that No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section . In K. SUBRAMANIAN VERSUS R. RAJATHI REP. BY P.O.A.P. KALIAPPAN 2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C., compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. Since, in the instant case, the petitioner-accused after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act, has paid Rs.1,30,000/-, as full and final settlement amount to the appellant-complainant, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon ble Apex Court. The present matter is ordered to be compounded and the judgment is quashed and set-aside and the petitioner accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act - taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court (supra) and the financial condition of the petitioner, as he is a poor person, since the competent Courts can reduce the compounding fee with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to deposit token compounding fee of Rs.2,500/- (rupees two thousand five hundred) only with H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, H.P., within four weeks from today. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after a settlement between the parties. Issue 1: Compounding of Offence under Section 138 of the NI Act The applicant/respondent was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, and an application was filed for compounding the offence. A Bank Draft was handed over for the settlement amount, and both parties agreed to a compromise. The Special Power of Attorney holder of the complainant confirmed the settlement, leading to no objection to setting aside the conviction and acquitting the accused. The court accepted the compounding request based on the settlement and relevant legal provisions. Issue 2: Legal Provisions on Compounding Offences The court referred to Section 147 of the NI Act, which makes every offence under the Act compoundable, overriding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) related to compounding. The court discussed the difference between Section 320 of the CrPC and Section 147 of the NI Act, emphasizing the enabling provision in the latter for compounding offences under the Act. Issue 3: Precedent and Guidelines on Compounding Offences Citing the case of K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi, the court highlighted that a compromise can be accepted after the recording of a judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court also referred to guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the imposition of a compounding fee, based on the stage of the legal proceedings and the amount involved. The court directed the petitioner to deposit a token compounding fee with the State Legal Services Authority. Conclusion: The judgment allowed for the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act due to the amicable settlement between the parties. The conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted. The court considered legal provisions, precedents, and guidelines in reaching the decision, highlighting the importance of early compounding to streamline legal proceedings and reduce court burdens.
|
