2022 (8) TMI 819 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate Court Upholds Decision on Section 138 NI Act | Petitioner's Conviction Quashed

Suneel Chand Chopra Versus Jitender Singh, State of Himachal Pradesh

Suneel Chand Chopra Versus Jitender Singh, State of Himachal Pradesh - TMI Issues:1. Challenge to judgment/order by petitioner2. Prayer for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act3. Deposit of cheque amount with Himachal Pradesh Legal Service Authority4. Exercise of power of compounding the offence5. Decision on compounding the offence and refund of excess amount6. Quashing of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner7. Disposal of the petition and any pending miscellaneous applicationsAnalysis:1. The petitioner challenged the judgment/order passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the judgment by the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment and pay compensation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.2. A prayer for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the petitioner through a petition under Section 147 of the Act and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter was settled amicably between the petitioner and the complainant, with the complainant expressing no objection to the compounding of the offence.3. The petitioner had deposited the cheque amount with the Himachal Pradesh Legal Service Authority following a court order. The petitioner requested that 5% of the cheque amount be considered as the compounding fee and the excess amount be refunded by the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Service Authority.4. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., the petitioner's counsel argued that it would be in the interest to compound the offence given the developments in the case.5. After hearing both parties and considering the settlement between them, the court allowed the prayer for compounding the offence. It was ordered that 25% of the deposited amount be retained as a compounding fee, with the balance to be given to the petitioner. The excess amount was directed to be refunded by the Himachal Pradesh Legal Service Authority.6. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in the criminal case were quashed and set aside by the court, based on the decision to compound the offence.7. The petition was disposed of in accordance with the court's decision on compounding the offence, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also addressed.