9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oan of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant-Ram Krishan and he agreed to repay the same within a period of six months, i.e., on or before 19.11.2017. On 20.05.2017 the accused, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant, issued two cheques of HDFC Bank, Nahan, bearing No. 000046 and 000047, dated 19.11.2017 of Rs. 40,000/- each, in favour of the complainant. The accused also undertook that in case he failed to return the loan amount, the complainant could recover the same from the aforesaid cheques and to this extent he gave an affidavit on 20.05.2017, which was duly notarized by Notary Neeraj Rani, Advocate. However, the aforesaid cheques, on being presented for encashment, were dishonoured with remakrs "funds insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused on 26.02.2018, but despite receiving the same on 03.03.2018, he refused to make the payment of the aforesaid cheques. Resultantly, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., and upheld/modified by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment dated 29.10.2024 is quashed and set-aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 8. The petitioner-accused Balbir Singh stated that on a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Act, he was convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., vide judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 08.12.2023 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. He has further stated that on appeal preferred by him, the judgment of conviction was upheld and the order of sentence was reduced from two years imprisonment to six months and fine amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.10.05.000/-, vide judgment dated 29.10.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, H.P.. He also stated that during the pendency of the present proceedings, he has compromised the matter with the respondent, as per Compromise Deed, Annexure A-1, annexed with Cr.MP No. 987 of 2025, and paid the entire amount of compensation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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'. A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, 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." 11. In K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi; (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 352, 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. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "6. Thereafter a compromise was entered into and the petitioner claims that he has paid Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. 15. Undisputedly, the total amount of the cheques is Rs.80,000/-, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and the imposition of compounding fee may be reduced. 16. In case K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had issued the guidelines with respect to the imposition of compounding fee, which read as under:- "THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
