IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – Court can proceed to compound offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, after recording of conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Sandeep Sharma, J.—By way of instant application filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant/accused for compounding of the offence under S.147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’). No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the Learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the respondent/complainant (hereafter, ‘complainant’) instituted complaint under S.138 of the Act against the accused in the competent court of law alleging therein that the accused issued cheque bearing 283466 dated 25.8.2016 (Ex. CW-1/B) amounting to Rs.80,000/- in his favour drawn at UCO Bank, Jubbal, District Shimla, however, fact remains that the aforesaid cheque was dishonored on account insufficient funds in the account of the accused vide memo dated 17.11.2016, and resultantly, the complainant instituted proceedings under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by parties, held accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1.20 Lakh to the complainant. Accused filed appeal but the same was also dismissed, after which he approached this court under Ss. 397 and 401 CrPC by way of Cr. Revision No. 332 of 2021, but the same was also dismissed on merit vide order dated 10.11.2022.

3. After passing of order dated 10.11.2022, accused compromised the matter with the respondent, whereby he has paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to the learned counsel for the respondent and qua Rs. 70,000/- deposited with learned trial Court, accused has no objection, in case said amount is released in favour of the respondent. On account of aforesaid settlement, accused has approached this court in the instant application filed under S.482 CrPC, praying therein for compounding of the offence under S.147 of the Act. Learned counsel for the nonapplicant fairly states that since entire amount of compensation has been deposited by the accused, respondent shall have no objection in case prayer of the accused for compounding of the offence and thereafter his acquittal is accepted.

4. The question which requires consideration in the instant application is that, whether after upholding the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned courts below, this court can proceed to compound the offence or not?

5. This court vide judgment passed in CrMP No. 1197 of 2017 in Cr. Revision No. 394 of 2015 titled Gulab Singh v. Vidya Sagar Sharma, while relying upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional Courts has already held that court, while exercising power under S.147 of Act can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where accused stands convicted. Relevant portion of the order passed by this court in order supra is reproduced as under:—

“8. Before acceding to aforesaid joint request having been made by learned counsel for the respective parties, moot question arise for determination of this Court is whether it has power to review/recall its own order/judgment passed in Criminal Revision No.394 of 2015, wherein judgment of conviction recorded by both the Courts below came to be upheld.

9. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, has invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Naresh Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & another, Criminal Misc. Application No.371 of 2016 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1267 of 2016, to suggests that in view of amicable settlement arrived inter se the parties, this Court has power to recall its judgment in the light of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Act, which permits compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. At this stage, it would be profitab