TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the orders passed thereon, and after perusing the same be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22nd September 2017 and 15th December 2015 respectively in the interest of justice; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this application, Your Lordships be pleased to stay the warrant issued by the Ld. Trial, Mahesana in Criminal Case No.4109 of 2013 in the interest of justice; (C) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) as are deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." It appears from the materials on record that the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint against the applicant herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No.4109 of 2013 ended with a judgment and order of conviction passed by the 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, dated 15th December 2015. The applicant, being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, preferred the Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2016 in the Sessions Court at Mehsana. The appellate court, by judgment and order dated 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed by both the Courts below. 5. I respectfully submit that the affidavit tendered by me has been made voluntarily and without any force or influence and the same need to be considered at the time of deciding the present application." Mr.Imran Pathan, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submitted that the entire cheque amount has been paid by the applicant to his client. The question before me is, whether it is permissible for me to record the settlement and quash the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate court. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Kripalsingh Pratapsingh vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardisingh Lohana, (2004)2 GLH 544. A learned Single Judge of this Court, after considering various decisions of the Supreme Court and the provisions of the Act more particularly section 147 of the Act, took the view that it would be permissible for the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 of the code to recall its earlier order and record the settlement arrived at between the parties and acquit the accused of the charge. I may quote the obser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s cited by the learned counsel for the respective party and some other decisions of the Apex Court and I do not think it necessary to enlist those decisions which are taken into consideration for the purpose of the present proceedings. But ultimately one balanced principle has emerged that the petitions invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal/disposal or revision application under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., are not maintainable by the same party, more so when no special circumstances are made out. The gist of this ratio is reflected in the decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 3524 in the case of Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir and ors. It was contended before the Apex Court that as the earlier revision petition filed by the accused persons under Section 397 of the Code has been rejected by the High Court vide order dated 13-7-1990, they had no right to file the petition under Section 482 of the Code with prayer for quashing the same order. While dealing with the above contention the Apex Court observed that "...We do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that as the earlier application had been dismissed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted to invoke the jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. So both the petitioners, in stricto senso the accused and the complainant, are not under obligation Section 482 of Cr.P.C. So the present petitioners stand on a better legal footing. 21. The embargo of sub-section 6 of Section 320 Cr.P.C. pointed out by Ms. Joshi learned APP would not come in the way so far as the relief prayed in both the petitions are concerned. I would like to reproduce the relevant part of Section 320 of Cr.P.C: "320 (1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table. (2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. (3)... (4)... (5)... (6) A High Court or Court of Session acting in the exercise of its powers of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uilding shall "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force" be deemed to be the gross annual rent for which the building might "reasonably at the time of the assessment be expected to be let from year to year" While therefore, the requirement of the law is that the reasonable letting value should determine the annual value of the building, it has also been specifically provided that this would be so "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force". It appears to us that it would be a proper interpretation of the provisions of clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act to hold that in a case where the standard rent of a building has been fixed under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, and there is nothing to show that there has been fraud or collusion, that would be its reasonable letting value, but, where this is not so, and the building has never been let out and is being used in a manner where the question of fixing its standard rent does not arise, it would be permissible to fix its reasonable rent without regard to the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961. This view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld not be legal to hold that merely because the litigation has reached to the stage of revision, grant of previous permission by the court to place the compromise on record and to compound the offence, is a condition precedent. 24(iv). The Apex Court, while dealing with Section 41 of Indian Penal Code in the case of Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh reported in AIR 1964 SC 260 has observed that the expression 'general law and 'special law are relative terms and referred to a particular subject dealt with by respective act so that it is not possible logically to label any set of laws as being general laws or special law. The stamp law contained in the Stamp Act will come under description of a special law in relation to crime in connection with the said law. But still, the law as regards Stamp Act will be a general law. The court is aware that the expression 'special law defined in Section 41 of Indian Penal Code cannot be taken to mean only enactment which creates fresh offences not made punishable under the Indian Penal Code. But undisputedly the offence made punishable under Section 138 NI Act is a subject not specifically dealt with by Indian Penal Code. The liabilitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable Instruments Act, 1981, namely, Sections 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Not only the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act. 2. A large number of cases are reported to be pending under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the said Act, pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to review Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 181 and make recommendations as to what changes were needed to effectively achieve the purpose of that Section. 3... 4. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Standing Committee on finance and other representations, it has been decided to bring out, inter alia the following amendments in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, namely. (i) xxxxx (ii) xxxxx (iii) xxxxx (iv) to prescribe procedure for dispensing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a substantive petition is brought in such a situation or contingency, then the court at the relevant point of time can positively insist that either the complainant or the person authorised by the complainant victim of criminal wrong should be a party petitioner to such petition or at least a party respondent supporting the say of the petitioner that the grievance is settled to the satisfaction and the convict may be either acquitted or released from the prison or any other appropriate order may be passed. 28(ii). Technically speaking, in such an eventuality, the fine imposed, if not paid to the State or the same is required to be refunded to the person released or acquitted on compounding the offence, then the court while passing orders dealing with such petitions, the parties can be fasten with the liability of costs for the contingency created by them in protracting the litigation and not compounding the offence at appropriate stage. Thus, at appropriate stage, the court can take care of the fact situation while dealing with such petitions/revisions pending in the Civil Court qua the same transaction. 29. The court is aware about one accepted principle of law and the principl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hapter XVII of IPC (i.e., the offences qua property). 31. In the circumstances, it is hereby declared that the compromise arrived between the parties to this litigation out of court is accepted as genuine and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned JMFC, Vadodara and confirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara, therefore, on the given set of facts are hereby quashed and set aside as this Court intends, otherwise to secure the ends of justice as provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. obviously the order disposing Revision Application would not have any enforceable effect. 32. In view of the above, the accused-Salvinder Kaur Harditsingh Lobana shall not be under obligation to surrender to the jail authorities and shall be treated as acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the complainant/person affected. 33. Accordingly, both the petitions are required to be allowed and they are allowed. Rule made absolute in both the petitions in the above terms. Both the petitioners shall pay costs of Rs. 2500/- (two thousand five hundred) each to the Respondent-State. My attention is also drawn by the learned advocates appearing ....