Compounding of cheque dishonour offences and limits on recall of final orders under criminal procedure
A compromise under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is legally effective for compounding an offence under Section 138, and no separate affidavit or express authorisation from the complainant is required where counsel acts within authority. Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars alteration or review of a signed judgment except for clerical or arithmetical errors, and inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to recall an order absent cogent material showing fraud on the court. The challenged settlement and refusal to recall the order were therefore upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be compounded on the basis of a settlement under Section 147 of that Act without insisting on an affidavit or separate authorization from the complainant. (ii) Whether the High Court could modify the conviction and sentence or recall its earlier order in view of the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether any case of fraud on the court was made out to justify interference under Section 482 of that Code.
Issue (i): Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be compounded on the basis of a settlement under Section 147 of that Act without insisting on an affidavit or separate authorization from the complainant.
Analysis: Section 147 contains a non obstante clause and makes every offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act compoundable notwithstanding the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The statutory scheme does not require the complainant or accused to file an affidavit for a valid settlement. A compromise entered into by counsel within the authority conferred by the litigant is binding on the party, and the settlement between the parties was therefore legally permissible.
Conclusion: The settlement could validly be acted upon, and the plea that it was ineffective for want of a separate affidavit or express reiteration was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could modify the conviction and sentence or recall its earlier order in view of the bar under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether any case of fraud on the court was made out to justify interference under Section 482 of that Code.
Analysis: Section 362 imposes an express bar on alteration or review of a signed judgment or final order, save for clerical or arithmetical errors. The case did not disclose material showing that the order had been procured by fraud, nor was there any sufficient basis to invoke inherent powers under Section 482. The allegations against counsel were unsupported by adequate material, and the circumstances did not justify upsetting the order on that ground.
Conclusion: The High Court was held not to have grounds for recall or interference on the basis of fraud, and the challenge to the modified order failed.
Final Conclusion: The settlement and the High Court's refusal to recall its order were upheld, and no interference with the impugned judgment was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi: A compromise under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is legally effective despite the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and a signed judgment cannot be reviewed or altered except as expressly permitted by Section 362, unless a clear case of fraud on the court is established on cogent material.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
