IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of N.I. Act can proceed to compound offence even in those cases where accused stands convicted.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Sandeep Sharma, J.—By way of instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner, for compounding the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and set aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.12.2021/04.12.2021 in criminal case No.4-3 of 2018, titled as Rajesh Pathania Vs. Satvir Singh, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby Court below, while holding petitioner/accused (hereinafter, “accused”), guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/- to the respondent/complainant (hereinafter, “complainant”).

2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that in the month of March 2017, accused borrowed a sum of Rs.95,000/- from complainant for his personal needs and thereafter, with a view to discharge his liability issued post dated Cheque bearing No.561718 dated 05.08.2017 amounting to Rs.95,000/-, against the account, maintained by him with the Punjab & Sind Bank, Branch Office Sanjauli, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, however, fact remains that the aforesaid Cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since despite having received legal notice, petitioner-accused failed to make good the payment within the time stipulated, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment of conviction dated 02.12.2021 and order of sentence dated 04.12.2021, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as per description given hereinabove.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 11.04.2022. Petitioner/accused further laid challenge to the aforesaid judgment before this Court in Criminal Revision Petition bearing No.340 of 2022, which also came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.05.2023, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. However, pursuant to dismissal of Criminal Revision Petition No.340 of 2022, before petitioner/accused could be arrested, he entered into compromise with the complainant, whereby petitioner-accused settled the matter with the respondent/complainant for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as full and final settlement to the complainant. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for compounding the offence, alleged to have been committed by him and for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below.

5. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondent/complainant, Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, fairly admits factum with regard to receipt of Rs.1,20,000/- in terms of amicable settlement arrived inter se parties. He states that since amount agreed to be paid in terms of amicable settlement stands received by respondent/complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence.

6. Though parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, but now question