9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1115 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - conviction of accused - settlement arrived at between the parties - compounding of the case - HELD THAT - Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner accused and the complainant-respondent have settled the matter, the complainant has received the entire amount of cheques and the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, therefore, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused-petitioner 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 since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause. 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 compromised the matter with the complainant and has paid the entire amount of cheques to the complainant, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon ble Apex Court. The application is allowed and matter is ordered to be compounded.
Issues:
The judgment involves a petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(I), Shimla, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Summary: The case revolved around the accused purchasing apple boxes from the complainant and issuing two dishonored cheques to settle his financial liability. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, leading to the accused's conviction and sentence by the Trial Court. The accused then appealed the decision, which was dismissed, prompting the accused to file the instant petition seeking acquittal. During the proceedings, the accused and complainant settled the matter, with the complainant receiving the due amount and expressing no objection to compounding the offense. The Court, considering the settlement and the complainant's stance, accepted the prayer for compounding the offense under Section 147 of the NI Act. Citing relevant judgments, the Court highlighted the enabling provision of Section 147, which allows for compounding of offenses under the NI Act. The Court also referred to guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the imposition of compounding fees based on the stage of the proceedings and the amount involved. In light of the settlement, the Court ordered the compounding of the offense, quashing the previous judgment of conviction and sentence. The Court directed the accused, a poor person, to deposit a token compounding fee of 5% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority within six weeks. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending miscellaneous applications.
|
