2022 (7) TMI 1113 - HC - Indian Laws

Petitioner acquitted in dishonored cheque case, compensation upheld.

MATHIA RAM SON OF SHRI SHERU RAM Versus ASHOK KUMAR SON OF SHRI SUNDER SINGH

The Court acquitted the petitioner-accused of dishonoring a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashing the conviction and ... Dishonor of Cheque - compounding of the case - acquittal of the accused - framing of charges - Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act empowers the Court to award compensation in favour of complainant, which may extend to twice to amount of cheque. The maximum compensation has already been awarded by the trial Court. Therefore, the respondent stands adequately compensated in the matter. So far as imprisonment is concerned, in case of compounding the accused/petitioner is to be acquitted and in view of provision of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, present case is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonor of cheque, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is treated to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. [2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT] as clarified by the Apex Court in MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY VERSUS PRATEEK JAIN & ANOTHER [2014 (10) TMI 528 - SUPREME COURT], a lenient view be taken and the petitioner be exempted from payment of compounding fee. After depositing compounding fee, petitioner shall place a copy of receipt of deposit of compounding fee on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today, the consequential action shall follow to recover the said amount as fine under Cr.P.C. - Petition stands disposed of. Issues:1. Appeal against conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Petitioner's request for compounding the case.3. Disagreement on compensation amount by the respondent.4. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.5. Decision on imprisonment in case of compounding.6. Petitioner's request for exemption from compounding fee.7. Direction for depositing compounding fee.8. Consequences of default in depositing compounding fee.9. Disposal of the petition and pending applications.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging the conviction and sentencing under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought to assail the judgment of the Sessions Judge, which affirmed the conviction and sentencing passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was convicted for dishonoring a cheque and sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant.2. The petitioner, through counsel, requested to compound the case by releasing the compensation amount to the respondent without further adjudication. The petitioner had already deposited the compensation amount in the Court's registry. However, the respondent disagreed with the proposed compounding, claiming that the compensation awarded was inadequate, considering it was the fifth round of litigation.3. The Court examined Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows the Court to award compensation to the complainant, extending up to twice the amount of the dishonored cheque. It was noted that the maximum compensation had already been awarded by the trial Court, leading to the opinion that the respondent was adequately compensated in the matter.4. Regarding imprisonment, in case of compounding, the accused is to be acquitted as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the Court compounded the case, quashed the judgments of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioner-accused of the accusations.5. The petitioner sought exemption from the compounding fee based on legal precedents. The Court, considering the circumstances, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000 as a compounding fee with the State Legal Services Authority within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in consequential actions to recover the amount as a fine under the Criminal Procedure Code.6. The petition was disposed of as per the terms mentioned, and parties were permitted to use downloaded copies for various purposes. The judgment was to be sent to the State Legal Services Authority, and the petitioner was instructed to provide a copy of the receipt of the compounding fee deposit.