TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 324
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... On 24.04.2018, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondent with the promise to return the same on or before 23.04.2019 and to this effect agreement dated 24.04.2018 was executed. In discharge of the aforesaid financial liability towards the respondent, the petitioner issued a cheque, bearing No. 045664, dated 03.03.2021, amounting to Rs.4,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Kala Amb, in his favour. However, the aforesaid cheque, on being presented for encashment before the Bank, was dihonoured on 03.03.2021 due to insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 05.03.2021, the respondent issued legal notice to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to liquidate his financial liability towards the respondent within the stipulated time. Resultantly, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act") before the learned Trial Court. 3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- to the complainant/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed and set-aside and he may be acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 8. Complainant-Shri Sumit Kumar stated that on the basis of his complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act, the petitioner-accused was convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., vide judgment of conviction/order of sentence, dated 24.06.2024, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.4,60,000/-, which was further affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., vide judgment, dated 27.05.2024. He further stated that now during the pendency of the present proceedings, the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and petitioner-accused has deposited the entire amount of compensation. Therefore, he has no objection in case the matter is compounded and the judgment of conviction/order of sentence dated 24.06.202, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., which was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., vide judgment, dated 27.05.2024, is quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cannot be compounded. However, since Section 147 was inserted by way of an amendment to a special law, the same will override the effect of Section 320(9) of the CrPC, especially keeping in mind that Section 147 carries a non obstante clause." 11. In K. Subramanian Vs. R. Rajathi; (2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 352, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320 of Cr.P.C., compromise arrived at can be accepted even after recording of the judgment of conviction. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "6. Thereafter a compromise was entered into and the petitioner claims that he has paid Rs. 4,52,289 to the respondent. In support of this claim, the petitioner has produced an affidavit sworn by him on 1.12.2008. The petitioner has also produced an affidavit sworn by P. Kaliappan, Power of attorney holder of R. Rajathi on 1.12.2008 mentioning that he has received a sum of Rs. 4,52,289 due under the dishonoured cheques in full discharge of the value of cheques and he is not willing to prosecute the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner states at the Bar tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amounts in favour of the complainant-respondent after due verification. 16. Undisputedly, the total amount of the cheque is Rs.4,00,000/-, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor person and the imposition of compounding fee may be reduced. 17. In case K. Subramanian vs. R. Rajathi (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court had issued the guidelines with respect to the imposition of compounding fee, which read as under:- "THE GUIDELINES (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 condit....