IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to allow the compounding of a case under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, taking into consideration the settlement between the parties and the payment made to the complainant, and to exercise discretion in reducing the cost to be paid by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 9339/2024 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to just all exceptions.

CRL.M.A. 9340/2024 (condonation of delay)

Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Vali have no objection if the delay is condoned without prejudice to their rights and contentions.

Delay is accordingly condoned.

CRL.M.A. 9341/2024 (u/s 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding)

1. A revision petition has been filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 401 & 482 of Cr.P.C.

2. Respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act) against the petitioner herein. Such complaint eventually resulted in conviction of the petitioner and in relation to the present complaint case i.e. Complaint Case No. 9978/2016, he was held guilty and convicted vide order dated 30.06.2023.

3. Order on sentence was passed by learned Trial Court on 25.08.2023 whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Besides, he was also directed to pay compensation of double of the cheque amount. Since the cheque amount was Rs.45,000/-, he was directed to deposit compensation of Rs.90,000/-. It was also ordered that in default of payment of said compensation, he would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

4. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing appeal which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 177/2023. Said appeal was dismissed on 25.11.2023 and the quantum of sentence was also not disturbed/interfered by the learned Appellate Court.

5. Petitioner was taken into custody on 25.11.2023 itself and is reportedly to be in custody since then.

6. Impugned order has been challenged on various grounds. It is, inter alia, claimed that complainant did not mention about the loan amount in ITR and, therefore, statutory presumption could not have been invoked.

7. Be that as it may, there is one significant development in the interregnum.

8. When the petitioner was in judicial custody, his son Vishal Sharma entered into settlement with complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) and such settlement has been reduced in writing. Copy of settlement deed has been attached as Annexure P-4.

9. We may also note that there were, in all, six complaints (including the present one) filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 138 NI Act against the petitioner. In all such six complaints, the cheque amount was identical i.e. Rs.45,000/-. It is also admitted situation that similar sentence has been given to the petitioner in the other five complaints/matters also and petitioner has filed separate revision petitions challenging his conviction and sentence.

10. These revision petitions are Crl. Rev. P. 412/2024, Crl. Rev. P. 413/2024, Crl. Rev. P. 414/2024, Crl. Rev. P. 416/2024 & Crl. Rev. P. 418/2024.

11. Settlement deed is composite for all the six complaints and towards full and final settlement, the complainant i.e. respondent no. 2 has already been given a sum of Rs.4,72,000/- which she has accepted without any pressure, force, coercion and misrepresentation. Such settlement deed bears her signatures as well.

12. She is present in Court and has reiterated the terms of the settlement and states that she would have no objection if matter is compounded. Her counsel Mr. Amit Yadav also identifies her and states that since matter has been amicably settled, he would have no objection if the application moved by the petitioner under Section 147 of NI Act is allowed and the revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.

13. Petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2023 and since settlement has already taken place between the parties, in order to avoid any further incarceration of the petitioner, matter has been taken up today for final disposal.

14. Mr. Vali, who represents respondent no. 2, has very fairly stated that since the matter is essentially between the two private parties and since they have settled their dispute and the payment has also been reportedly made to the compla