Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
G. Patribasavan Gaud, J.
M. Rangaswamaiah - Petitioner
versus
R. Shettappa - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 524 of 1998
Decided on 30-5-2000
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri M.R. Nanjunde Gowda, Advocate.
For the Respondent: M/s. Hegde Associates, Advocates.
Held: Therefore, in view of Section 4(2) of the Cr. P.C., the aspect of compounding, would be permissible to be looked at in respect of offences under any other law in the spirit of what the said other law deals with it, rather than in the spirit of Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. We therefore come to the Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no prohibition in the said Act against compounding of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act, in the absence of any such prohibition therefore, where the Court finds that the parties have settled the matter, where the complainant being present before the Court submits before the Court that the accused has paid him the money covered by the cheque, it would be appropriate to allow the parties to compound, rather than negativing such a joint request made by the parties and proceeding to inflict the sentence on the accused. Particularly when there is no prohibition against compounding, any rejection of a request in that regard would not further the cause of the justice and particularly where the commission of offence is not related to the society at large, but only against a particular person, viz., the complainant to whom certain sum is due under the cheque. I am therefore of the opinion that it would be legally permissible for the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (Para 5)
Result: Revision disposed of accordingly.
G. Patribasavan Goud, J. - On the complaint filed by the respondent, alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act for short), the petitioner came to be convicted by the learned Magistrate of the said offence, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 75,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. Since the amount covered by the cheque concerned was RS. 50,000/-, the learned Magistrate directed that, out of the fine amount of Rs. 75.000/-, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- be paid to the respondent complainant.
The petitioner-accused's appeal before the learned Sessions Judge came to be dismissed.
The petitioner has now approached this Court under Section 397 of the Cr. P.C.
2. In course of hearing of this revision petition, the petitioner and the respondent have presented an application under Section 320(6) of the Cr. P.C. Both the parties, along with their Counsel are present in Court, and the parties submit that they have compounded the offence. The respondent complainant also submits that the petitioner accused has paid the amount covered by the cheque to him. I find that parties have done so voluntarily. It is true, sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. permits the revisional Court also to allow compounding of the offence, but the person concerned should be competent to compound under Section 320 of the Cr. P.C., as further made clear in sub-section (6) of Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. The entire Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. both in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2), deals with compounding of offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. provides that, no offence shall be compounded except as provided by Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. That means that, so far as the offences punishable under the one or the other Sections under the Indian Penal Code, there could be no compounding of any such offence except as provided in Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. The question is as to what should be the position in respect of an offence punishable under any other Act.
3. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Cr. P.C. provides that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Cr. P.C. provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions of the Cr. P.C., subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Compounding of an offence could be brought into the category .of “otherwise dealing with the offence". So far as compounding of an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, there could be no way of dealing with it, other than to the extent as set out in Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. So far as offences under the other Acts are concerned, if compounding of a particular offence under arty other law or enactment is to be viewed from an angle different from the one provided in Section 320 of the Cr. P.C., then, I am of the opinion that, as permitted by Section 4(2) of the Cr. P.C., the aspect of compounding of the said offence under the said other enactment should be dealt with in the manner as indicated in the said other enactment, notwithstanding the embargo in sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Cr. P.C. The question that therefore arises would be as to whether the Act, i.e., the Negotiable Instruments Act, indicates a different approach.
4. Schedule II of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ('old Code' for short) set out a Tabular Statement of offences containing eight columns one of which related to whether a particular offence is compoundable or not. Initially dealing with the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the said. Tabular Statement, at t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
