2023 (8) TMI 1224 - HC - Indian Laws

Compounding of offense under Section 138 allowed, petitioner acquitted after reaching compromise with complainant

Badri Prasad Versus Padam Singh

The court allowed the compounding of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, quashing the previous judgments against the ... Dishonour of Cheque - prayer for compounding of offence - HELD THAT:- Having taken note of the fact that the entire amount of compensation, as awarded by the learned Trial Court, i.e., Rs.8,00,000/-, has been received by the complainant and he has no objection in compounding the offence, therefore, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accusedpetitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in DAMODAR S. PRABHU VERSUS SAYED BABALAL H. [2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in view of the non-obstante clause, the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is controlled by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CrPC”) will not be applicable in the strict sense since the latter is meant for the specified offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In K. SUBRAMANIAN VERSUS R. RAJATHI REP. BY P.O.A.P. KALIAPPAN [2009 (11) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C., compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. Since, in the instant case, the petitioner-accused after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act, has already paid the entire amount of compensation to the complainant, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court - here, the parties are permitted to get the matter compounded in light of the compromise arrived inter se them. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the financial condition of the petitioner, as he is a poor person, since the competent Courts can reduce the compounding fee with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to deposit token compounding fee of Rs.5000/- only with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, H.P., within four weeks from today. Petition disposed off. Issues:The case involves a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a judgment convicting the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought to compound the case and quash the judgments passed by the lower courts.Summary:The petitioner purchased apple cases from the complainant, promising to pay the sale consideration after selling them. When the petitioner issued a cheque for the amount, it bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, leading to the petitioner's conviction and sentencing. Despite appeals and revisions, the judgments were upheld.During the proceedings, the complainant and the petitioner reached a compromise, with the complainant receiving the compensation awarded. The complainant expressed no objection to quashing the conviction and sentence against the petitioner. Considering the received compensation and the compromise, the court accepted the petitioner's prayer for compounding the offense.The court referred to legal precedents and guidelines, including Section 147 of the NI Act and Section 320 of the CrPC, allowing for the compounding of offenses. Citing relevant judgments, the court permitted the compounding of the offense, quashing the previous judgments against the petitioner and acquitting them. The court also addressed the issue of a compounding fee, directing the petitioner to deposit a token amount with the State Legal Services Authority due to their financial condition.In conclusion, the court disposed of the petition by allowing the compounding of the offense, quashing the previous judgments, and directing the petitioner to deposit a nominal compounding fee.