TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter compounding the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Precisely, case of the petitioner is that since after recording of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below, he has settled the matter with the complainant under OTS Scheme for sum of Rs. 3,52,000/-, this Court may compound the offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act and thereafter, set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the courts below. 3. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2. While fairly acknowledging factum with regard to One Time Settlement arrived inter-se parties, Mr. Sharma, states that since amount as settled under OTS scheme has been received by the respondent Bank, it shall have no objection in case petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the courts below against the petitioner is quashed and set-aside. 4. Though parties in the case at hand have resolved to settl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he parties and as a consequences thereof to acquit the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Vide order dated 6.10.2016, the aforesaid revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court while upholding and affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. It was jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that after the order dated 6.10.2016 the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise and the amount in the dispute has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant. It was further submitted that although the revision petition has been dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 6.10.2016, but even then that order can be recalled in the light of provisions of Section 147 of N.I. Act which permits compound of the offence under Section 138 of the Act at any stage and the accused can be acquitted. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the case of K. Subramanian Vs. R.Rajathi reported in (2010) 15 SCC 352 and order dated 7.7.2015 passed by a Single Bench of Hon'ble Gujara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Court, the High Court as well as by this Court. The two affidavits sought to be produced by the petitioner as additional documents would indicate that indeed a compromise has taken place between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent has accepted the compromise offered by the petitioner pursuant to which he has received a sum of Rs. 4,52,289. In the affidavit filed by the respondent a prayer is made to permit the petitioner to compound the offence and close the proceedings. 8. Having regard to the salutary provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner should be permitted to compound the offence committed by him under Section 138 of the Code." 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has categorically held that in view of the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Act, read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C, compromise arrived inter se the parties, can be accepted and offence committed under Section 138 of the Act, can be ordered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed not with a case of dismissal in limine by a non-speaking order of an SLP preferred against the judgment of which review is sought but with dismissal as withdrawn of the SLP. Though the review petitioners, while seeking to withdraw the SLP also sought liberty to move this Court in review petition but the Supreme Court merely dismissed the SLP as withdrawn and has not stated that the liberty sought had been granted. 9. The question which arises is, whether the dismissal as withdrawn of the SLP, even in the absence of the words "with liberty sought" is to be read as grant of liberty. 10. The review petitioners obviously were of the opinion that without the aforesaid words, they did not have liberty to approach this Court by way of review and claim to have made an application to the Supreme Court in this regard but which application is stated to have been refused to be listed. 11. In our opinion, it is not for us to venture into, whether the order, notwithstanding having not provided that the review petitioners had been granted liberty, grants liberty or not. It cannot be lost sight of that it is not as if the counsel for the review petitioners, when the S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....terfere or it may not interfere depending upon the law and principles applicable to interference in review; but the High Court, if it exercises a power of review or deals with the review application on merits, cannot be said to be wrong in exercising statutory jurisdiction or power vested in it. It was expressly held that review can be filed even after SLP is dismissed and as also before special leave is granted but not after it is granted. It was held that once special leave is granted, the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the High Court's order vested in the Supreme Court and the High Court cannot entertain a review thereafter unless such a review application was preferred in the High Court before the SLP was granted. With respect to Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) it was observed that the facts and circumstances of the case persuaded the Supreme Court to form an opinion that the tenants were abusing the process of the Court by approaching the High Court and the very entertainment of review petition and then reversing the earlier order was an affront of the order of the Supreme Court. It was explained that the three Judges Bench in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was filed after the order of dismissal of the SLP. 20. What we find is that the observations, of preferring review petition after the dismissal of SLP amounting to abuse of the process of the Court, in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm (supra) as well as in Sunil Kumar (supra) are on a factual finding of the petitioners therein abusing the process of the Court and not on the maintainability of the review petition. Certainly, if we are to find the review petitioners herein also to be abusing the process of the Court by preferring this review petition after withdrawal of the SLP preferred against the judgment of which review is sought, the review petition of the review petitioners would also suffer the same fate. However it would not make the review not maintainable." 9. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunha Yammed and others versus State of Kerala and others; (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 359, wherein it has been held as under:- "22. We may refer to a recent decision, by Two-Judges Bench, of this Court in V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2000 (3) Scale 240, holding that when a special leave pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary to the one expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 but still, the case not being one where leave was granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or it sometimes briefly lays down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down by the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave petition. The reasons given are intended for purposes of Article 141. This is so done because in the event of merely dismissing the special leave petition, it is likely that an argument could be advanced in the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as not to have differed in law with the High Court. 10. Since in the case at hand, petitioner after being convicted under Section 138 of the Act has compromised the matter with the respondent complainant and in terms thereof has already paid the entire amount of compensation, prayer for compounding the offence can be accepted in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellate level. It would be apt to take note of following paras of the judgment passed in Ramgopal's case (supra): "12. The High Court, therefore, having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are non compoundable. The High Court can indubitably evaluate the consequential effects of the offence beyond the body of an individual and thereafter adopt a pragmatic approach, to ensure that the felony, even if goes unpunished, does not tinker with or paralyze the very object of the administration of criminal justice system. 13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings involving nonheinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction. Handing out punishment is not the sole form of delivering justice. Societal method of applying laws evenly is always subject to lawful ex....