IMPORTANT POINT
The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised to secure the ends of justice, allowing for the compounding of the offence and quashing of judgments and orders.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent and Mr. K. Khemka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to compound the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and further for setting aside and quashing the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2017, upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in CR Case No. 10(A)/2015, convicting the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo SI for 6 (six) months and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation.

3. It is submitted by Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, that on being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hailakandi in Criminal Appeal No. 44/2017 upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hailakandi in CR Case No. 10(A)/2015, the present petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition along with one interlocutory application, being I.A. (Crl.) 136/2019, to condone the delay of 74 days in preferring the criminal revision petition. Accordingly the notice was also issued in the said interlocutory application. But the engaged counsel remained absent on several consecutive dates before this Court and finally on 19.10.2022, the said interlocutory application was dismissed for non-prosecution. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the fact of the dismissal of the said petition was never informed to the petitioner, rather the engaged counsel mislead the petitioner saying that the case is pending for disposal. As the said interlocutory application was dismissed, the revision petition was not admitted for hearing. Resultantly, the learned Court below issued warrant of arrest to secure the sentence and accordingly, on 17.02.2024, the present petitioner was arrested and since then, he is behind the bar.

4. Thereafter, there was a settlement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 and he received the entire compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Court below. In this connection, the wife of the petitioner executed a deed of compromise with the respondent No. 1 on behalf of the petitioner in presence of some middlemen and some elderly persons. Thus, the respondent No. 1 has no further objection or claim if the petitioner is acquitted by this Court in CR Case No. 10(A)/2015. The respondent No. 1 also issued a money receipt on 12.02.2024 acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner which was paid by his wife by executing a compromise deed.

5. In view of above compromise between the parties, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compound the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and further prayed for quashing of the impugned judgment and order whereby the present petitioner was sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 (six) months along with a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. To substantiate the plea, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reported in 2021 SCC OnLine All 532 [Rishi Mohan Srivastava Vs. State of U.P.] and further emphasized on paragraph No. 21 of the judgment, which reads as under :

“21. In the case of Krishan Vs. Krishnaveni, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that though the inherent power of the High Court is very wide, yet the same must be exercised sparingly and cautiously particularly in a case where the petitioner is shown to have already invoked the revisional jurisdiction unde