2024 (5) TMI 983 - HC - Indian Laws

Amicable Settlement Achieved in Negotiable Instruments Act Case, Court Approves Acquittal with Payment of Costs.

RAJKUMAR S/O PURANCHAND GUPTA Versus KALYAN SINGH S/O GANGARAM PANWAR

RAJKUMAR S/O PURANCHAND GUPTA Versus KALYAN SINGH S/O GANGARAM PANWAR - TMI Issues involved: The judgment involves a revision filed against a Sessions Court's decision in a criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and compensation.Details of the Judgment:1. Issue 1 - Conviction and Sentence: The revision was filed against the Sessions Court's decision affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving a cheque amount of Rs.30,000.2. Issue 2 - Settlement and Compromise: Both parties submitted that the dispute was settled amicably, and the respondent had no objection to the petitioner being acquitted from the charge under Section 138. The law laid down by the apex court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. was cited regarding guidelines for compounding offenses in cheque bouncing cases.3. Issue 3 - Guidelines for Compounding: The judgment referenced guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding offenses under Section 138 of the Act, emphasizing the need to discourage litigants from delaying the composition of the offense.4. Issue 4 - Payment of Costs: As the parties had settled the dispute and entered into a compromise, the applicant was directed to pay 3% of the cheque amount as costs to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority within seven days for acquittal. Failure to pay would result in the original sentence and compensation being enforced.5. Issue 5 - Disposal of Revision: The revision was disposed of, subject to the payment of costs, and any pending applications were closed. The judgment highlighted the power of the court to frame guidelines in cases of legislative vacuum, ensuring justice and discouraging unnecessary litigation.6. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.This summary outlines the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the conviction, settlement, guidelines for compounding offenses, payment of costs, and the disposal of the revision, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and adherence to legal procedures.