High Court dismisses petition seeking acquittal based on compromise in NI Act case, warns against abuse of inherent powers.

Mohd. Ameen Khan Versus Mahesh Devnani

Mohd. Ameen Khan Versus Mahesh Devnani - TMI Issues:
1. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking acquittal based on compromise in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Conviction by trial court upheld by lower appellate court.
3. Criminal revision filed challenging conviction and sentence.
4. Compromise reached between parties seeking to withdraw the case.
5. Dismissal of the revision and application for suspension of sentence and bail.
6. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deemed as an abuse of process of law.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking acquittal from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a compromise between the parties. The applicant had been convicted by the trial court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment along with compensation. The lower appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, leading to the filing of the petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court.

2. Despite the applicant being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, a criminal revision was filed challenging the decisions of both the trial court and the lower appellate court. The revision was accompanied by an application seeking permission to compromise the matter as the parties had reached an amicable settlement. The complainant had received a certain amount, expressed satisfaction, and did not wish to pursue the case further.

3. The parties were directed to record their statements before the Registrar, who confirmed that the compromise was voluntary and without any external influence. However, the High Court dismissed the revision as non-maintainable, citing relevant rules and precedents. Additionally, the application for suspension of sentence and bail was also rejected due to the applicant's absconding status, emphasizing the necessity of his presence for the proceedings.

4. Subsequently, the applicant filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking acquittal based on the compromise. The court, after considering the facts and legal principles, concluded that the petition was an abuse of the process of law. The court highlighted that while the High Court possesses inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, such powers should be used judiciously and sparingly.

5. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that inherent powers should not be invoked in matters covered by specific provisions of the law or if their exercise would contravene such provisions. Given the circumstances of the case, including the dismissal of the revision and the applicant's absconding status, the court deemed the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as not maintainable and subsequently dismissed it.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings, the application of relevant laws, and the court's reasoning in dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.