2024 (5) TMI 1219 - HC - Indian Laws

Hearing Date Moved, Mutual Settlement Reached: Petitioner Acquitted of Negotiable Instruments Act Charge.

Sukhchain Singh Versus M/s Tara Chand Dinesh Kumar and ors.

The court advanced the hearing date, accepted the compromise and affidavit on record, and ultimately acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section ... Dishonour of Cheque - insufficient funds - settlement of disputes between the parties - compounding of offence u/s 138 N.I. Act - HELD THAT:- This Hon’ble Court in ‘Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and another [2006 (8) TMI 685 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that 'The compounding of the offence under Section 138 can be done during the trial of the case as well as by the High Court or Court of Session while acting in the exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code Reference may be made to Section 320(6) Criminal Procedure Code in this regard.' This Court in Vatsa Electronics Vs. Pala Ram & Anr. [2022 (4) TMI 353 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has also held that once a settlement is being effected, then in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 320 Cr.P.C., the accused ought to be acquitted as the offence stands compounded. Since, the parties have voluntarily settled the disputes between themselves, it is a fit case for allowing them to compound the offence. The revision petition is allowed and subject to payment of 15% of the cheque amount to be deposited with Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh Plot No.1, Madhya Marg, Sector 28- A, Chandigarh, as well as the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pehowa, are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Issues:1. Application for advancement of the next date of hearing.2. Application for placing a compromise and affidavit on record.3. Revision petition against the judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.4. Compounding of the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Analysis:Issue 1:The petitioner filed an application for the advancement of the next date of hearing to an earlier date. The court allowed the application, advancing the hearing to the same day.Issue 2:Another application was filed to place a compromise and an affidavit on record. The court allowed the application, subject to all just exceptions, and the documents were taken on record.Issue 3:The revision petition was filed against the judgment of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was convicted for dishonoring a cheque and failing to make the payment, leading to legal proceedings. The petitioner's appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the filing of the revision petition.Issue 4:During the pendency of the revision petition, a compromise was reached between the parties. The petitioner contended that the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be compounded as a settlement had been reached. The respondents did not object to compounding the offense. Citing relevant legal provisions, the court noted that the offense under Section 138 is compoundable. Referring to previous judgments, the court held that once a settlement is reached, the accused should be acquitted as the offense stands compounded. The court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the previous judgments and acquitting the petitioner of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner was ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.In conclusion, the court allowed the advancement of the hearing date, accepted the compromise and affidavit on record, and ultimately acquitted the petitioner of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a mutual settlement between the parties.