2018 (4) TMI 1908 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes convictions, allows settlement in NI Act case, emphasizing compounding provisions.

ISUBKHAN JUZARKHAN PATHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

ISUBKHAN JUZARKHAN PATHAN Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - tmi Issues Involved:1. Quashing of judgment and order of conviction.2. Settlement and compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Judgment and Order of Conviction:The applicant, the original accused, sought to quash the judgments and orders of conviction passed by the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, dated 15th December 2015, and affirmed by the Sessions Court, Mehsana, on 22nd September 2017. The applicant filed a Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2016, which was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment and order of conviction. The appellate court issued a warrant of arrest due to the accused's absence. However, a settlement was reached between the complainant and the applicant before the execution of the warrant.2. Settlement and Compounding of the Offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The respondent no.2 (original complainant) lodged a complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant confirmed the receipt of the entire cheque amount of Rs. 50,000/- and expressed willingness to withdraw all litigations against the applicant. The affidavit submitted by the complainant stated that the dispute was of a personal nature and not against society, and there was no surviving grievance post-settlement. The complainant consented to the quashing of the judgments and orders passed by both the trial and appellate courts.3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The court deliberated whether it could record the settlement and quash the conviction. Citing the case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardisingh Lohana, the court held that it is permissible for the High Court, under its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to recall its earlier order and record the settlement, thereby acquitting the accused. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows for the compounding of offences, was highlighted as having an overriding effect over the procedural aspects of the Cr.P.C. The court referred to various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in K.Subramanian v. R.Rajathi, which supported the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Act even at the appellate or revisional stage.Conclusion:The court declared the out-of-court settlement as genuine and quashed the conviction and sentence passed by the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and affirmed by the Sessions Court. The warrant of arrest issued by the trial court was cancelled, and the petition was allowed, making the rule absolute to the extent of quashing the judgments and orders.