Cheque dishonour compromise can be accepted after revision ends when special circumstances justify inherent court intervention.

A later petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC was held maintainable despite dismissal of an earlier revision, because special circumstances arising from a genuine compromise and partial payment justified intervention to prevent failure of justice. The Court also treated cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as compoundable on the basis of an out-of-court settlement, holding that Section 147 operates as a special overriding provision and that prior court permission is not a condition precedent. On that basis, the compromise was accepted, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the accused was treated as acquitted on compounding.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after dismissal of an earlier revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case. (ii) Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be compounded on the basis of an out-of-court compromise even after the revisional proceedings had concluded.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after dismissal of an earlier revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case.

Analysis: The earlier revisional remedy had been disposed of, but the Court treated the later petitions as supported by special circumstances arising from the compromise already reached between the parties and the partial payment made pursuant to it. The Court held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 is not barred in every case after revision, and that where special circumstances are made out, the Court may intervene to prevent failure of justice and to secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The subsequent petitions were held maintainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (ii): Whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be compounded on the basis of an out-of-court compromise even after the revisional proceedings had concluded.

Analysis: Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as a special provision with overriding effect and as enabling compounding notwithstanding the general scheme of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that prior permission of the Court was not a condition precedent for compounding a cheque dishonour offence under Section 138, and that the compromise already arrived at between the parties was genuine and effective for the purpose of disposing of the dispute.

Conclusion: The offence was held compoundable and the compromise was accepted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were quashed, the accused was treated as acquitted on compounding, and the petitions were allowed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a genuine compromise may be accepted and the offence compounded even after revisional proceedings have ended, because Section 147 operates as a special overriding provision and the High Court may invoke Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to secure the ends of justice in special circumstances.

---