9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 136 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Dishonour of Cheque - challenge to conviction of Revision Petitioner/accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentence passed - compromise arrived at between the parties - compounding of offences - Whether the order passed by the Appellate Court confirming the conviction of the trial court under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be nullified by the High Court on the basis of compromise entered between the parties? - HELD THAT - It is well settled that inherent power of the Court can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigants and nor a specific remedy as provided by the statute. It is also well settled that if an effective alternative remedy is available the High Court will not exercise its inherent power especially when the Revision Petitioner may not have availed of that remedy. The power can be exercised by the High Court to secure the ends of justice prevent abuse of the process of any court and to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or Act depending upon the facts of the given case - These powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other provision of the Code or Act. However such inherent powers are to be exercised sparingly and with caution. In the instant case the Revision Petitioner is invoking the inherent power of this court after dismissal of the appeal confirming his conviction and sentence. In these circumstances it is required to examine as to whether for entertaining the aforesaid case any special circumstances are made out or not so it can be legitimately argued and inferred and held that in all cases where the Revision Petitioner is able to satisfy this Court that there are special circumstances which can be clearly spelt out subsequent proceeding invoking inherent power of this court can be modified and cannot be thrown away on that technical argument as to its sustainability once the contesting parties entered into subsequent compromise. In the case of Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni 1997 (1) TMI 529 - SUPREME COURT Hon ble the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the applicant is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code. Only in cases where the High Court finds that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure sentence or order was not correct the High Court may in its discretion prevent the abuse of process or miscarriage of justice by exercising its power. In the case of S.W. Palankattkar others Vs. State of Bihar 2001 (10) TMI 1150 - SUPREME COURT it has been held by the Hon ble Apex Court that quashing of the criminal proceedings is an exception than a rule. The inherent powers of the High Court itself envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised -(i) to give effect an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the court ; (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The power of High Court is very wide but should be exercised very cautiously to do real and substantial justice for which the court alone exists. Section 147 of NI Act begins with a non obstante clause and such clause is being used in a provision to communicate that the provision shall prevail despite anything to the contrary in any other or different legal provisions. So in light of the compass provided a dispute in the nature of complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act can be settled by way of compromise irrespective of any other legislation including Cr.P.C. In general and section 320 (1)(2) or (6) of the Cr.P.C. in particular. The scheme of section 320 Cr.P.C. deals mainly with procedural aspects; but it simultaneously crystallizes certain enforceable rights and obligation. Hence this provision has an element of substantive legislation and therefore it can be said that the scheme of section 320 does not lay down only procedure; but still the status of the scheme remains under a general law of procedure and as per the accepted proposition of law the special law would prevail over general law. In the instant case the problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute furthermore the arguments on behalf of the Govt. Advocate (crl.side) on the fact that unlike Section 320 Cr.P.C. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court. Conclusion - Taking into account the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably by way of compromise this Court is of the view that the compounding of the offence as required to be permitted. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts annulled treating the revision petitioner as acquitted due to the compounding of the offense. The trial court is directed to refund Rs.35, 000/- already deposited by the Revision Petitioner in C.C.No.315 of 2018 along with accrued interest if any within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with appropriate application before the trial court - The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered in this case was whether the High Court could nullify the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a compromise reached between the parties after the appellate court had confirmed the trial court's decision. This involved examining the applicability of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows for the compounding of offenses, and its interaction with Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which governs the compounding of offenses in general. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which deals with the offense of cheque dishonor, and Section 147, which allows for such offenses to be compounded. The court also considered Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., which outlines the general principles for compounding offenses, and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with its non-obstante clause, allows for the compounding of offenses under the Act, overriding the general provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the primary objective of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compensatory rather than punitive, and thus, compounding should be encouraged to resolve disputes amicably. Key evidence and findings: The court noted that the parties had reached a settlement, and the revision petitioner had handed over a demand draft for the full disputed cheque amount to the respondent. This settlement was recorded in court, and both parties agreed to compound the offense. Application of law to facts: The court applied Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, acknowledging the settlement between the parties and the payment of the disputed amount. It found that the compounding of the offense was justified and aligned with the Act's compensatory nature. Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the arguments against compounding presented by the learned Govt. Advocate, who contended that the conviction had been upheld on merit and that allowing compounding at this stage might constitute an abuse of process. However, the court found that the settlement between the parties and the compensatory nature of the Act justified compounding the offense. Conclusions: The court concluded that the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be compounded at any stage, including after the appellate court's decision, provided the parties reached a settlement. The court exercised its inherent powers to secure the ends of justice and allowed the compounding of the offense. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core principles established: The court reaffirmed that offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are primarily compensatory and can be compounded at any stage, including after conviction, if the parties reach a settlement. The non-obstante clause in Section 147 of the Act allows it to override the general provisions of Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. Final determinations on each issue: The court annulled the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts, treating the revision petitioner as acquitted due to the compounding of the offense. It directed the trial court to refund the amount deposited by the revision petitioner as a condition of bail. The court's decision underscores the importance of the compensatory aspect of the Negotiable Instruments Act and encourages the resolution of disputes through settlement, even at advanced stages of litigation, to achieve justice and efficiency in the legal process.
|
