9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nour of cheque a crime by enacting a special law. This Court has time and again reiterated that in cases of section 138 of NI Act, the accused must try for compounding at the initial stages instead of the later stage, however, there is no bar to seek the compounding of the offence at later stages of criminal proceedings including after conviction, like the present case - In the case at hand, initially, both sides agreed to compound the offence at the appellate stage but the appellant could not pay the amount within the time stipulated in the agreement and the complainant now has shown her unwillingness towards compounding of the offence, despite receiving the entire amount. The appellant has paid the entire Rs.1.55 crore and further Rs.10 lacs as interest. In the present case, the appellant has already been in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail and has also compensated the complainant. Further, in compliance of the order dated 08.08.2023, the appellant has deposited an additional amount of Rs.10 lacs. There is no purpose now to keep the proceedings pending in appeal before the lower appellate court. Here, we would like to point out that quashing of a case is di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de (hereinafter referred to as IPC ) against the appellant, wherein it was said that the appellant had wrongfully retained the hard-earned money of the complainant and had cheated her. The charge sheet dated 21.07.2014 under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120B of IPC was filed against the appellant and trial commenced in the said FIR case. 3. In NI Act case, the trial court vide order dated 25.05.2015/29.05.2015 convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment along with direction to pay the amount of cheques. In the appeal filed by appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge, both sides made an effort to settle the dispute and consequently the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat, where after negotiations, parties reached a settlement. Consequently, the Additional Session Judge, Pre-Lok Adalat, Amabala passed the settlement order dated 05.12.2015 where the appellant agreed to pay back the entire amount of Rs.1.55 crore, which was to be paid within a period of about 16 months. Once the entire amount was paid, the entire proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act as well as offences under Section 406, 420 read with 120B of IPC a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on the ground that the appellant failed to deposit the remaining Rs. 20 lacs within the time stipulated (3 weeks) in the Supreme Court order dated 29.11.2019. Now, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 7. On 14.03.2023, this Court passed an interim order directing the appellant to deposit Rs.20 lacs before the trial court and sought a compliance report from the trial court. This Court order dated 14.03.2023 reads as follows: The petitioner shall deposit the sum of ₹ 20 lakhs before the trial court within two weeks. The trial court shall pass an order recording the deposit and also indicate whether the petitioner has duly complied with the present order. A copy of this order shall be communicated directly to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala (seized of Criminal Case No. 78 of 2014 arising out of FIR 35 of 2014). The trial court shall then report compliance to the Registry to this Court. List after three weeks. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court, appellant submitted two cheques of amount Rs.10 lacs each before the trial court and the trial court forwarded a compliance report to this Court mentioning that appellant has duly complied with the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, initially both the sides had entered into a settlement in the Lok Adalat, where they agreed that if the appellant compensates the complainant by repaying the entire amount of Rs.1.55 crore then they would get the offences compounded or quashed. However, the trial court by order dated 11.07.2016 declared the settlement as frustrated on the ground that the appellant could not pay the complainant on the deadlines stipulated in the said settlement and the trial court might have been right in doing so because settlement itself had a clause which read as follows: 5. That in case of default of making payment well in time according to dates mentioned above, the settlement shall be frustrated with immediate effect and then appeal shall be decided on merit. Be that as it may, it is also true that the complainant had accepted the amount from the appellant later when the appellant approached higher courts showing his willingness to pay the amount as agreed between the parties. 11. As per section 147 of the NI Act, all offences punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable. However, unlike Section 320 of CrPC, the NI Act does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther Rs.10 lacs as interest. As far the requirement of consent in compounding of offence under section 138 of NI Act is concerned, this Court in JIK Industries Limited Ors. v. Amarlal V. Jamuni Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 255 denied the suggestion of the appellant therein that consent is not mandatory in compounding of offences under Section 138 of NI Act. This Court observed that: 57. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act reads as follows: 147. Offences to be compoundable. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 58. Relying on the aforesaid non obstante clause in Section 147 of the NI Act, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Damodar [(2010) 5 SCC 663 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 520 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328] , held that in view of non obstante clause in Section 147 of the NI Act, which is a special statute, the requirement of consent of the person compounding in Section 320 of the Code is not required in the case of compounding of an offence under the NI Act. 59. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the courts cannot compel the complainant to give consent for compounding of the matter. It is also true that mere repayment of the amount cannot mean that the appellant is absolved from the criminal liabilities under Section 138 of the NI Act. But this case has some peculiar facts as well. In the present case, the appellant has already been in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail and has also compensated the complainant. Further, in compliance of the order dated 08.08.2023, the appellant has deposited an additional amount of Rs.10 lacs. There is no purpose now to keep the proceedings pending in appeal before the lower appellate court. Here, we would like to point out that quashing of a case is different from compounding. This Court in JIK Industries Ltd. Para 43. (Supra) distinguished the quashing of case from compounding in the following words: Quashing of a case is different from compounding. In quashing the court applies it but in compounding it is primarily based on consent of the injured party. Therefore, the two cannot be equated. In our opinion, if we allow the continuance of criminal appeals pending before Additional Sessions Judge against the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
