Compounding of cheque-bounce convictions in revision may be accepted on compromise terms, with discretionary costs for delayed settlement.

In revision proceedings arising from convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court may take compromise or consent terms on record and permit compounding, because Section 147 makes cheque-bounce offences compoundable and Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow revisional intervention to secure legality and the ends of justice. The revisional forum is not barred from recording a lawful settlement, even though compounding is distinct from quashing. In belated compromise matters, costs are ordinarily justified under the graded-cost approach, but the Court may reduce them on case-specific facts by recording reasons so that the settlement is not frustrated.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in revision proceedings under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising from convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court can accept compromise or consent terms and permit compounding of the offence; (ii) whether costs should ordinarily be imposed or may be reduced while granting such relief.

Issue (i): Whether, in revision proceedings under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arising from convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court can accept compromise or consent terms and permit compounding of the offence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Sections 397, 401 and 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was held to permit the High Court, in appropriate revision matters, to take compromise terms on record and allow compounding. Section 147, being non-obstante in nature, makes offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act compoundable, while Section 401 enables the revisional court to exercise appellate powers for securing legality, propriety and the ends of justice. The Court distinguished compounding from quashing, but held that the revisional forum is not barred from recording a lawful settlement in compoundable cheque-bounce matters.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative. The High Court can accept consent terms in revision proceedings and allow compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): Whether costs should ordinarily be imposed or may be reduced while granting such relief.

Analysis: The Court applied the graded-cost approach in Damodar S. Prabhu, noting that belated compounding justifies costs to discourage delay and protect the administration of justice. At the same time, it held that the amount may be reduced on case-specific facts by recording reasons, so long as the compromise is given effect and the settlement is not frustrated.

Conclusion: Costs are ordinarily warranted in belated compromise matters, but the High Court may reduce them on the facts of a particular case.

Final Conclusion: The judgment settles that compoundable cheque-bounce revisions may be resolved on the basis of compromise before the High Court, with discretionary costs, and it disposes of the connected matters accordingly while leaving two matters for separate hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision proceedings arising from convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the High Court may, in exercise of its revisional and inherent jurisdiction, accept compromise terms and permit compounding, and may impose or suitably reduce costs on the basis of the stage and facts of the settlement.

---