TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1089
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n No. 3830 Of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 1543 Of 2003 With Criminal Application No. 1344 Of 2015, Criminal Revision Application No. 38 Of 2007, Criminal Application No. 413 Of 2016. - -<br>Indian Laws<br>MILIND N. JADHAV, J. Criminal Revision Application No. 373, 374, 375, 376 Of 2016 With Civil Contempt Petition No. 510 Of 2017, Criminal Revision Application No. 369 Of 2023, Criminal Revision Application No. 625 Of 2015, Criminal Revision Application No. 152 Of 2007 With Interim Application No. 3830 Of 2024, Criminal Appeal No. 1543 Of 2003 With Criminal Application No. 1344 Of 2015, Criminal Revision Application No. 38 Of 2007, Criminal Application No. 413 Of 2016 With Criminal Application No. 565 Of 2016, Criminal Revision Application No. 474 Of 2007, Criminal Revision Application No. 475 Of 2007, Criminal Revision Application No. 475 Of 2007, Criminal Revision Application No. 158 Of 2015, Criminal Revision Application No. 380 Of 2002, Criminal Revision Application No. 380 Of 2002 Criminal Revision Application No. 585 OF 2002. M/s. AFX+Q Engineers and Anr., Dhananjay Digambar Bhagwat, Rajaram Ganpat Narvekar, Kailas Bapurao Gadge, Sheela Jagdish Katira, Ramesh Jagdishchandr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DGEMENT: 1. After hearing Mr. Raikar, learned Advocate for Respondent - Complainant in Criminal Revision Application (for short "CRA") Nos. 373 of 2016, 374 of 2016, 375 of 2016 and 376 of 2016 and Dr. Krishnaiyer, learned APP for the State on 19.11.2024, the following order was passed:- "1. Heard learned Advocates and learned APPs appearing for the respective parties in all Revision Applications. 2. The submissions advanced by learned Advocates in serial Nos.15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 35, 47 and 49 have been heard by me. The learned Advocates have relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court, as also this Court. The aforesaid matters pertain to the parties proposing to file Consent Terms in matters under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the said Act') which have travelled to this Court in Revision proceedings. Since all these matters pertain to deciding a common question of law as to whether this Court would be empowered under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure to accept Consent Terms as a sequitur of which it would lead to compounding of the offence is required to be decided by this Court. 3. In the present cases at s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m Vs. K. P. Mohammed & Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 2281 of 2009. 6. To assist the Court on the above issue and while referring to the aforesaid decisions he has made following submissions:- 6.1. He would submit that the scope of Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is limited and the Courts have held that invoking this Section to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, in particular when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as also Sessions Court in Appeal is not permissible. He would submit that for the High Court to interfere in two concurrent findings of conviction there must be either a gross miscarriage of injustice or total non-consideration of facts as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerela Vs. PIJ Namboodiri 1992 2 SCC 452. He would submit that similarly it is held by the Supreme Court in the case of T.P. Murugan Vs. Bojan 2008 8 SCC 469 that mere doubt in the admitted evidence cannot be interfered with, in Revisional jurisdiction in the event of concurrent findings. 6.2. He would submit that the Courts have also held that the Revisional Court also enjoy power c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will be dealt with as per the guidelines laid down for compounding which includes a payment of 15% cost if the application for compounding is made before the High Court or the Sessions Court as held in Damodar S. Prabhu (7th supra). The compounding provision has also been discussed in the subsequent judgements of the Supreme Court with respect to the mode and manner of compounding and it explains the difference between quashing of a case and compounding. The distinction between Quashing and compounding is also well explained and it is held that in Quashing, the Court applies it in order to quash the impugned order however, in compounding the consent of the injured party is required to compound the offence. Further, it was also held that there is no reason to refuse a compromise between the parties, however the procedure relating to compounding under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be given a go-by as held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinay Nayak Vs. Ryot Seva Saharkari Bank Ltd. 2008 2 SCC 305., and JIK Industries (6th supra). (iii) The third option available to the Accused may not be applicable in all Criminal Revisions but for those cases where during the pendency of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be treated as a relevant consideration. The Penal Code, 1860 has been subjected to various amendments in order to ensure that society becomes a much safer place for human existence and various offences which affect large sections of society have been incorporated as penal offences. For example, the object of section 498-A was to strike at the root of menace of dowry and to prevent crimes against women. There are various examples of a similar kind where penal provisions have been introduced to sub-serve the purpose of proper administration of justice and protection to individuals. Every crime committed has dual consequences. Firstly it affects the victim adversely. Secondly it disturbs the fabric of the society. It may even introduce an element of fear psychosis in human relationships and thus prejudice harmony in humanity. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayakv. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., 2008 (1) Bom. C.R. 523, the Supreme Court while dealing with an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act observed as under: "11. It is no doubt true that every crime is considered to be an offence against the society as a whole and not only against an individual even t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (ii) In the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Maya Sanjay Khandare and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3, paragraph Nos. 18 and 19 read thus:- "18. ".....There is no power conferred by the Code either on the appellate Court/revisional Court to acquit an accused convicted for a commission of a non-compoundable offence only on the ground that compromise has been entered into between the convict and the informant/complainant." 19. .....The order of conviction would have to be tested by the appellate Court/revisional Court on merits and if the Court finds it necessary to maintain the conviction, the compromise entered into would be only a factor to be considered while imposing appropriate sentence. In other words while maintaining the conviction for a non-compoundable offence the fact that after such conviction the parties have entered into a compromise would be a mitigating factor to be taken into consideration while awarding appropriate sentence." (iii) In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2014 AIR (SC) 3055 paragraph No. 4, reads thus :- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and, as to the; regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and then to pass necessary order in accordance with the provisions of section 398 to 401 of the Cr. P.C. The jurisdiction of both the Court is concurrent. However, once an-application is made under this section either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge no further application can be made by such person to the other in view of the specific bar contained in sub-section (3) of section 397 which reads: "(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions judge no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them". Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. deals with the inherent powers of High Court. It provides: "482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antial injustice has been done or where the process of the Court has been seriously abused. It is not merely a revisional power meant to be exercised against the order passed by subordinate Courts". It was further made clear; "the power being an extraordinary one, it has to be exercised sparingly." 4. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that sections 397 and 482 of the Cr. P.C. operate in two different fields. Sections 482 confers a separate and independent power on the High Court to pass orders ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. This inherent power of the High Court, as observed by the Supreme Court in Raj Kapoor, Supra, does not stand repelled when the revisional power under section 397 overlaps. In a given case, the High Court is not precluded from treating a petition filed under section 397 as a petition under section 482 and to grant necessary relief, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice. Nothing contained in subsection (3) of section 397 can come on the way of doing so, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with that of the Court hearing a criminal appeal, including one referable to the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. Notwithstanding the scope and ambit of Section 401 CrPC, the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is not to be treated as coextensive with the powers of the Appellate Court as delineated in Section 386 CrPC. This is so, notwithstanding the wider jurisdictional gamut available to the High Court in terms of Section 401 CrPC. It is also sound, as a principle, that distinction has to be maintained between converting an appeal to a revision and converting a revision to an appeal; be it in any jurisdiction which provides for appellate and revisional interference." 10. In view of the aforesaid decisions on the issue at hand, I appoint Mr. Faiz Merchant, learned Advocate and Counsel practicing in this Court to assist the Court in garnering the legal decisions and to place them before the Court and assist the Court as Amicus Curiae in the present case to determine the question framed in paragraph No. 2 herein above. 11. Registry is directed to give a copy of all Revision Applications alongwith a compilation of judgments referred to herein above to Mr. Merchan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "N.I. Act"). 5. Another submission advanced before me is that Consent Terms now arrived at between parties, even though belatedly after conviction pursuant to a full-fledged trial before Trial Court and proceedings in Appeal before Appellate / Sessions Court can be accepted by Court as held by the Supreme Court and the offence be allowed to be compounded in its Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 6. Parties have jointly approached this Court by filing Consent Terms and urged the Court to accept them on record in the interest of justice and put a quietus to the matter by forgoing the conviction and sentence in view of the Consent Terms. In some cases, Affidavit of Consent is filed by the Complainant which is placed on record. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae and Advocates for parties have addressed the Court for determination of the aforesaid question. I have endeavoured to capture and reproduce their submissions mad herein below. 8. Before I proceed to advert to the submissions made, briefly stated, the present set of matters are all Revision Applications filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C.. Hence, at the outset, it woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307, and, when the Judges composing the Court of Revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392. (2) No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence. (3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction. (4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. (5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High Court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 401 may allow any person to compound any offence which such person is competent to compound under this section. (7) & (8) xxxxx (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." 13. In the backdrop of the above provisions of Cr.P.C. and more specifically when present cases emanate from a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the next most relevant statutory provision which comes to the aid of parties and permits them to make Application for seeking compounding of the offence is Section 147 of N.I. Act. Section 147 provides for offences to be compoundable. It was introduced by the Amendment Act 55 of 2002 in the statute. It starts with a non-obstante clause and states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., every offence punishable under the N.I. Act shall be compoundable (emphasis supplied). Section 147 of N.I. Act reads thus:- "147. Offences to be compoundable.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 13.1. The statement of objects and reasons of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or (ii) the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Advocate has at the outset meticulously taken me through the gamut of the aforementioned legal provisions while emphasizing the ethos and interpretation of each of them. To answer the question framed, he would submit that on conjoint reading of the above provisions and citations referred and relied upon by this Court in its previous order dated 19.11.2024, this Court in its Revisional jurisdiction will have the jurisdiction to take on record the Consent Terms filed by parties and allow the Applicants to compound the offence and resultantly set aside their conviction. The only concern that he would express is whether at this belated stage, after conviction by Trial Court and pursuant to Appellate Court proceedings i.e. after exhausting the machinery of the Courts and burdening the legal system, would it be prudent to put a quietus to the matter without imposing costs, rather direct deposit of costs to the Applicants. 16.1. He would majorly rely on the provisions of Section 147 of N.I. Act to contend that the said statutory provision is the precursor provision enabling the parties to file Consent Terms. He would submit that Section 147 of N.I. Act begins with a non-obstante clause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (supra) referred to in my previous order dated 19.11.2024. 16.4. He would submit that under Section 147, all offences punishable under the N.I. Act are compoundable. He would submit that N.I. Act does not lay down the procedure and manner in which the offence can be compounded. He would submit that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. on the contrary lays down the procedure and manner in which offences under IPC can be compounded. He would submit that as observed by the Supreme Court, offence of dishonour of cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of the instrument (as defined under the N.I. Act) and the impact of this offence is usually confined to private parties involved in the commercial transaction. He would submit that in the larger interest of justice and the parties entering into compromise, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority by the Court over the punitive aspect in such cases. 16.5. He would submit that though compounding would require consent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....97 and 401 of Cr.P.C. have accepted Consent Terms in Revision proceedings, took them on record, allowed compounding of the offence and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Applicant / Accused therein. He would submit that in the larger interest of justice and the parties and the ethos of Sections 138 and 147 of N.I. Act and the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), there can be no impediment for this Court in its Revisional jurisdiction to accept the Consent Terms filed by the parties and allow compounding of the offence, even after conviction and resultantly set aside the conviction and sentence and put a complete quietus to the lis. 16.10. In support of his above submissions, learned Amicus has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts:- (i) Raj Reddy Kallem (supra); (ii) Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka Vs. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Limited (2023) 10 SCC 545; (iii) K. Subramanian (supra); (iv) Ram Briksh Singh and Ors. Vs. Ambika Yadav and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 665; (v) Roshan Lal Vs. Tej Ram Thakur Cri. Revn. No.664 of 202....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) DCC 185 (Madras HC); (xxviii) Ami Lal Vs. Mahavir Prasad Surendra Mohan 2005 SCC OnLine Raj 194 (Rajasthan HC); and (xxix)Shri Otin Panging and Anr. Vs. Shri Nambor Kaman and Ors. (1990) 2 GLR 314 (Gauhati HC). 17. Mr. Raikar, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent (Complainant) in Revision Application Nos. 373 of 2016 to 376 of 2016 and Civil Contempt Petition No. 510 of 2017 has next argued and supported the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae. He briefly addressed the Court today and relied on the decisions in the cases of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) and JIK Industries (supra) and another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 659 in addition thereto. He has drawn my attention to paragraph No. 22 in the decision of Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Ors. (supra) decided by the Supreme Court which I should quote here itself. It reads thus:- "22. The revisional court is empowered to exercise all the powers conferred on the appellate court by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 410 CrPC. Section 401 CrPC is a provision enabling the High Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in its extraordinary jurisdiction. However, he would submit that this Court in its Revision jurisdiction can in a given case convert the said Petition as Petition under Section 482 and pass appropriate order in the larger interest of justice. (ii) Secondly, to file Criminal Application in the existing Revision proceedings for compounding of the offence under Section 147 of N.I. Act. He would submit that this is permissible as laid down by the Supreme Court which has observed that the non-obstante clause under Section 147 of N.I. Act will have an overriding effect on the provisions of Cr.P.C. He would submit that Section 147 of N.I. Act does not bar the parties from compounding the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act even at the appellate stage. He would submit that for following the compounding procedure the Applicant - Accused will be required to file an Application and the same may then be dealt with as per the Guidelines laid down for compounding in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) which suggests payment of 15% of the transaction amount/fine amount as costs, if Application for compounding is made before the High Court or the Sessions Court. He would submit t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....promise / Settlement Terms are perused, it would be evident that despite the original transaction / cheque amount between the parties being much higher (Rs. 25,00,000/-), Respondent (Complainant) has agreed to receive a much lower amount (Rs. 20,00,000/-) and agreed to the compromise. He would therefore submit that consent and discretion of the Complainant in effecting such a compromise be respected by the Court when he agrees to receive a much lesser amount when juxtaposed with the Supreme Court Guidelines calling for deposit of costs of 15% or 20% over and above the said amount as per the decision in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). 17.4. He would urge the Court to take Consent Terms dated 30.09.2024 in CRA Nos. 373 to 376 of 2016 on record. The said Consent Terms are taken on record and marked "X-1" to "X-4" for identification. In such cases, he would submit that compromise should be accepted by Court to put a quietus to the matter. He would further submit that in cases which he represents, both transactional parties are Companies and they had a business relationship and do not involve an individual. On the issue of awarding costs, he would submit that the same is entir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be compounded. Therefore, this is a fit case where cost is required to be waived while compounding the offence. Since the parties have settled their disputes, it is in the fitness of things to close it at this stage itself as the conditions of settlement are mutually accepted between them. The dispute is an inter-se dispute between the parties and by entering into a settlement they have closed the dispute which had arisen between them. 21. From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to allow the present revision. 22. The present revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act stands annulled as this Court intends. The revisionist is acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the complainant/person affected before the mediation centre of this Court." 18.3. He would submit that the N.I. Act being a special statute will have primacy over the Cr.P.C. so far as the question of compounding of offence is concerned. He would submit that Section 320 of Cr.P.C. pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le hearing a Revision Application under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. While drawing my attention to paragraph No.7 of the above decision, he would submit that it is held therein that in such cases the nomenclauture of a petition is immaterial and for doing substantive justice, the High Court can always convert a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to a Revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and vice versa (emphasis supplied). He would submit that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2016) 16 SCC 30 there can be no total ban on exercise of inherent powers where abuse of process of Court or other extraordinary situation warrants exercise of inherent jurisdiction and therefore this Court has ample power in its Revisional jurisdiction to accept Consent Terms, allow compounding of the offence and set aside conviction of the Applicant - Accused. 21. Dr. Krishnaiyer, learned APP appearing for the State in all CRAs, while referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar (supra) would submit that quashing and compounding of matters are under two diff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....posit costs in a given case which needs to be addressed by me. 25. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) the following Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 need to be therefore considered. The Guidelines read thus:- (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that Accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition precedent for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such Authority as the Court deems fit. It further held that if Application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court (in Appeal) or before the High Court in Revision or Appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that Accused pays 15% of the cheuqe amount by way of costs and if the Application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure of costs would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. It is also clarified by the Supreme Court that costs imposed in accordance with these Guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. It is seen that the Supreme Court was clearly conscious of the fact that judicial endorsement of the above Guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain and therefore held that it was so because Section 147 of N.I. Act does not carve out Guidelines on how to proceed with compounding of offences under the N.I. Act. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so because when parties compromise and enter into a settlement, it is suggested that the Court should consider and also ensure that the settlement is fructified, rather than it is rendered unfruitful. If the Compromise / Settlement / Consent Terms are not accepted in matters under Section 138 of N.I. Act despite the imprimatur of Section 147 of N.I. Act which does not lay down any specific procedure, then it would result in the litigation and the lis being continued in the Court endlessly. This is certainly not the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 147 of N.I. Act. 29. Another reason which comes to my mind is that if the cheque amount between the parties is on the higher side or large, then implementation of the Guidelines and direction of deposit of 15% or 20% of the said cheque amount would burden the drawer / Applicant / Accused and in a given case may even deter the parties to approach the Court for compromise in which case it would resultantly lead to breakdown of the settlement or compromise. Hence, the Court has to proceed with a justice oriented and balanced and discretionary approach while considering a compromise and directing deposit of costs. This may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nings and consequences. They arise from different situations and operate in different fields and stages. There is no apparent legal interdependence or interlink to the extent that one could exist only if the conditions of the other were satisfied or vice-versa. Quashing is one of the facets of inherent powers, while compounding of an offence being a statutory expression contained under Section 320 CrPC is entirely a different concept. 95. The expressions "compromise" and "compounding" are not synonyms in criminal jurisprudence even though these expressions are usually used without any distinction. Any dispute can be compromised between the parties if the terms are not illegal. But only a compoundable offence allowed by law can be compounded. A dispute relating to a crime can be compromised even before the case is registered, and in that case, victim of the crime may refuse to file a complaint. But if in spite of compromise, if he files a complaint and court finds that what is compromised is a compoundable offence, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case Magistrate can refuse to take cognizance, or acquit the accused as offence was compounded or the complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....016 and Civil Contempt Petition No. 510 of 2017:- 37. In view of the above, the common Consent Terms given by parties in CRA Nos. 373 of 2016, 374 of 2016, 375 of 2016, 376 of 2016 and Civil Contempt Petition No. 510 of 2017 dated 30.09.2024 are taken on record and marked "X-1" for identification. In this case, it is seen that the cheque amount was approximately Rs. 25,00,000/- whereas parties have reconciled and filed Consent Terms and Complainant has agreed to receive Rs. 20,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the dispute in entirety. The Consent Terms state that Complainant has already received Rs. 13,62,500/- whereas the balance amount which is deposited by Applicant before the City Civil Court at Bombay in Suit No. 2023 of 2014 shall be withdrawn by the Complainant. Considering the findings in this judgement and the fact that the Consent Terms are filed much belatedly at the Revision stage, I am inclined to direct the Applicants in the aforesaid four CRAs to deposit costs of Rs. 20,000/- @ Rs. 5,000/- in each CRA due and payable to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority for taking the Consent Terms on record, setting aside the conviction and sentence of Applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired to be brought on record for continuation of the Revision proceedings. Interim Application No. 3830 of 2024 is a composite Application seeking condonation of delay for approaching the Court, setting aside abatement if any, and bringing the legal heirs on record. 39.1. I have perused the Interim Application. For the reasons stated in the Application, Interim Application No. 3830 of 2024 stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Delay stands condoned. Abatement stands set aside. Legal heirs are permitted to be brought on record. Amendment is permitted to be carried out forthwith. Reverification stands dispensed with. Court Sheristedar shall permit the Applicant to carry out amendment in Court. Interim Application No. 3830 of 2024 stands allowed and disposed. 39.2. In CRA, legal heirs of Complainant i.e. his widow and son have filed two separate Affidavits both dated 25.08.2024. Parties to the dispute are real brothers. One of the brother i.e. original Complainant who was Respondent No. 2 has expired. The amount of cheque which was dishonoured was Rs. 2,00,000/-. Revision Applicant has deposited the entire fine amount as per the order of the Trial Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is quashed and set aside. 41.2. The deposited amount of Rs. 4,05,000/- alongwith all accrued interest shall be paid over to the Complainant by the Registry of this Court / Court where the amount is deposited on production of a server copy of this judgement. Registry shall not insist on a certified copy of this order. 41.3. CRA No. 38 of 2007 is allowed in the above terms and Criminal Appeal No. 1543 of 2003 is accordingly disposed of in view of the Consent Terms. In view of the disposal of CRA and Criminal Appeal, pending Criminal Application Nos.1344 of 2015, 413 of 2016 and 565 of 2016 are accordingly disposed. Criminal Revision Application No. 625 of 2015:- 42. In CRA No.625 of 2015, parties have filed Consent Terms dated 20.12.2024 as they have amicably settled the matter. In this case, it is seen that the amount of dishonoured cheque is Rs. 80,000/- and the Trial Court has convicted the Applicant to suffer R.I. for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The judgement of the Trial Court was challenged before the Appeal Court and the Appeal Court has partly modified the sentence. At this juncture, parties have filed Consent Terms to put an end to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Ingawale would submit that if the common Compromise Pursis dated 04.10.2024 is seen, it is stated therein that parties have agreed to settle the matter on terms mentioned therein. It is seen that conviction of sentence is rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-. Thereafter parties have reconciled their differences, but on what terms they have settled or if any amount is paid is not stated in the Compromise Pursis. However, the dispute between the parties dates back to the year 2000 and since then they have been in the Court, rather various Courts upto the Revision stage in this Court. Compromise Pursis is signed by both parties i.e. Applicants and Complainants. 43.2. In that view of the matter and the above judgement, after hearing Mr. Ingawale and perusing the record, I am inclined to take the Consent Terms on record and accept them and award costs of Rs. 3,000/- against the Revision Applicant in each matter to be paid and deposited by them / Applicants with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority as costs for considering the request of the Applicants/parties to take the Compromise Pursis on record and allow Applicants to compound the offence.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould submit that Complainant i.e. private Respondent in this Application is not traceable and all attempts made by Applicant / his Advocate to serve Complainant have been futile. The remark returned on the service effected through Court states that Complainant is not found at the given address and he has sold his premises and his whereabouts are not known for the last 12 years. Mr. More would submit that in this case apart from sentence of till rising of the Court which is served there is fine amount awarded by Court of Rs. 7,00,000/-. He would submit that out of the total fine amount, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- has already been deposited by Applicants with Court as far back as in 2002. He would submit that Applicants are ready and willing to deposit the balance fine amount immediately in Court as and when directed by Court. He would submit that in the absence of Complainant this Court should consider the facts in the case and allow compounding of the offence. In the above distinct facts request made by the Applicants will have to be heard and decided by the Court separately. I need to consider whether Advocate from the Legal Aid is required to be appointed in this case for the Co....