2024 (12) TMI 522 - HC - Indian Laws

Accused acquitted after depositing Rs.1,15,000 for dishonoured cheque under Section 138 with complainant's consent

Ramesh Chand Versus Hoshiyar Singh

HP HC allowed compounding of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act offence after accused deposited Rs.1,15,000 as full settlement during petition ... Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - compromise between the parties - Sections 438 and 442 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita - HELD THAT:- Having taken note of the fact that the petitioneraccused, during the pendency of the instant petition, has deposited the entire amount of compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- in the Registry of this Court, as full and final settlement of the claim, and the complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, therefore, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the accused-petitioner 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 V. Sayed Babalal H. [2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held 'Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the same Act, thereby serving as an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the CrPC which states that ‘No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this Section’. A bare reading of this provision would lead us to the inference that offences punishable under laws other than the Indian Penal Code also cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause.' In K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi [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 deposited the entire amount of compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- in the Registry of this Court, as full and final settlement of the claim, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of the aforesaid judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court - Therefore, in view of the detailed discussion made as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the application is allowed and matter is ordered to be compounded. The present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. in CIS Regn. No. 379 of 2019, and affirmed vide order dated 10.07.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmour at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2024, are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act - Petition disposed off. Issues:Petition under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS against lower court orders; Compounding of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; Failure to comply with terms of compromise agreement; Application under Section 147 of the Act for compounding of offence; Statements of complainant and accused; Deposit of compensation amount by the accused; Legal provisions for compounding of offences under the Act.Analysis:The petitioner-accused filed a petition under Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS challenging the lower court orders convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner had borrowed money from the complainant and issued a post-dated cheque, which was dishonored, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The trial court convicted the accused, but during the appeal, a compromise was reached where the accused agreed to pay a certain amount by a specified date. However, the accused failed to meet this deadline, resulting in the revival of the conviction order.During the proceedings, the accused deposited the entire compensation amount in the court, seeking to compound the offence under Section 138 of the Act. Both the complainant and the accused consented to the compounding of the offence. The court considered the provisions of Section 147 of the Act and relevant judgments, including Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and K. Subramanian v. R. Rajathi, which allowed for compounding of offences even after conviction.Based on the submissions and legal precedents, the court accepted the application for compounding of the offence. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts were quashed, and the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. The court directed the release of the deposited amount to the complainant and discharged any existing bail bonds. The petitioner was also required to pay a compounding fee as per the directions of the court.In conclusion, the court allowed the application for compounding, citing the full payment of compensation by the accused and the consent of the complainant, in line with the provisions of Section 147 of the Act and established legal principles regarding the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act.