SLP withdrawal and cheque-compounding principles allow High Court review and set aside conviction after compromise.

Dismissal of an SLP as withdrawn by a non-speaking order does not amount to grant of leave and does not attract merger, so the High Court may entertain a review or recall petition against its revisional judgment within the ordinary limits of that jurisdiction. The document also states that a compromise can be acted upon even after conviction for a dishonoured cheque offence, because Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives overriding effect to compounding under Section 138. On the stated compromise and receipt of dues, the offence was compounded and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a High Court can entertain a recall or review application against its revisional judgment after the special leave petition against that judgment has been dismissed as withdrawn; and (ii) whether, in view of compromise between the parties, the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be set aside and the offence compounded.

Issue (i): whether a High Court can entertain a recall or review application against its revisional judgment after the special leave petition against that judgment has been dismissed as withdrawn;

Analysis: Dismissal of a special leave petition as withdrawn by a non-speaking order does not amount to grant of leave and does not attract the doctrine of merger. The High Court therefore retains jurisdiction to consider a review or recall application, subject to the ordinary limits governing such jurisdiction. The mere fact that the earlier special leave petition was withdrawn does not by itself bar maintainability.

Conclusion: The recall/review application was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether, in view of compromise between the parties, the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be set aside and the offence compounded.

Analysis: Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 gives overriding effect to compounding of offences under Section 138, and a compromise reached even after conviction can be acted upon. Where the complainant has received the amount due and the parties seek compounding, the criminal liability arising from the dishonoured cheque can be brought to an end. In such a situation, the conviction and sentence do not survive.

Conclusion: The offence was compounded and the conviction and sentence were set aside in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The judgment below ceased to operate after the compromise, and the petitioner was relieved of the conviction while the complainant was compensated.

Ratio Decidendi: Dismissal of an SLP as withdrawn by a non-speaking order does not create merger or bar High Court review, and an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 may be compounded at a later stage on a genuine compromise under Section 147 of that Act.

---