TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5,000 from the respondent but did not repay as promised. To discharge the said debt, the appellant no.2 gave a cheque of Rs.5,25,000 which was issued in the name of his partnership firm i.e., appellant no.1 (M/s New Win Export). Since the cheque was dishonoured due to 'insufficient funds', respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act against the appellants where the Trial Court vide order dated 16.10.2012 convicted the appellants and imposed a sentence of 1 year of simple imprisonment each. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Appellate Court, which reversed the findings of the Trial Court and acquitted the appellants. Finally, when the matter was taken to the High Court at the instance of the respondent/complainan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wenty five thousand only) and the First Party had received the sum of Rs.5,25,000/- (Five Lakhs and twenty five thousand only) from the Second party as mentioned above. 6. After the execution of the present Settlement Agreement, the Second Party is intending to file a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the First Party agrees to support the Special Leave Petition filed by the Second Party, in order to enable the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to pass appropriate order as the Hon'ble supreme Court may deem it fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present. 7. The First Party will have no objection if the conviction of the Second Party is set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d also like to reiterate a few words regarding the principles of compounding of offences in the context of NI Act. It is to be remembered that dishonour of cheques is a regulatory offence which was made an offence only in view of public interest so that the reliability of these instruments can be ensured. A large number of cases involving dishonour of cheques are pending before courts which is a serious concern for our judicial system. Keeping in mind that the 'compensatory aspect' of remedy shall have priority over the 'punitive aspect', courts should encourage compounding of offences under the NI Act if parties are willing to do so. (See: Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 Para 18, Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel ....