TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court acquits petitioner under Section 138 & 142 of NI Act based on settlement</h1> <h3>Mulla Shabuddin Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.</h3> Mulla Shabuddin Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - TMI Issues:1. Compounding of offence under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act based on compromise between parties.Analysis:The petitioner was accused in a case under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The lower court had convicted the petitioner, which was confirmed by the District & Sessions Judge. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the conviction. Both parties filed a joint memo stating they had reached a compromise and sought permission to compound the offence.During the court proceedings, both parties appeared, and it was verified that a settlement had been reached. The petitioner had paid a sum of money to the complainant as part of the settlement, which was accepted by the complainant. The complainant expressed satisfaction with the compromise and requested to close the proceedings by recording the compromise.The petitioner's counsel argued that due to a misunderstanding in the money transaction, a compromise had been reached, and the complainant did not wish to proceed with the complaint. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab, the counsel emphasized the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings in cases where a settlement has been reached between the parties.Referring to the principles outlined in the Gian Singh case, the High Court, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, granted permission to compound the offence and recorded the compromise. Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal revision, setting aside the previous judgments of conviction and acquitting the petitioner of the offence under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.The High Court's decision was based on the settlement between the parties and the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases where a compromise has been reached. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the nature of the offence and the impact on society before deciding to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise between the victim and the accused.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
