The Court can quash a conviction and sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground of compromise and settlement between the parties, subject to the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

JUDGMENT

Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging a judgment and order dated 12th June, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, City Session Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, in Criminal Revision No.78 of 2016, thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta in TR No. 1369 of 2009 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed praying for condonation of delay of about 500 days in preferring this revision.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows. For the purported dishonour of a cheque of Rs.15 lakhs, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and directed him to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation and to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court. This conviction and sentence was affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. There was a delay of about 504 days in approaching this Court in revision. The delay has been explained at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. Before filing of the revisional application, the accused and the complainant entered into a settlement and compromise. An amount of Rs.16,00,000/- was paid by the accused to the complainant in lieu of full and final settlement. Accordingly, the present revisional application was filed along with a joint compromise petition praying for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of compromise.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party submits as follows. The complainant/opposite party has no objection if the delay in preferring the revisional application is condoned. A compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties in respect of the disputes that had led to the initiation of the present proceeding. As such, the impugned proceeding ought to be quashed on the ground of compromise and settlement.

5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as also the joint compromise petition.

6. In view of the explanation given at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application for condonation of delay and in view of the fact that the complainant is not opposing the prayer for condonation of delay, I am inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.

7. In view of the averments made in paragraph 4 of the joint compromise application, I am of the view that a joint compromise and settlement has indeed been arrived at between the private parties.

8. In view of the same, I quash the impugned conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial court and as confirmed by the learned Appellate Court on the ground of compromise and settlement.

9. However, in view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, 2010 5 SCC 663 , the petitioner is directed to pay 15% of the cheque amount to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal within four weeks from this date. The receipt for such payment shall be deposited with the learned Registrar General, within a week from such payment.

10. Accordingly, the revisional application and the connected applications are disposed of.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties upon usual undertakings.