Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1905

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Pravin Regar - Appellant
Versus
Ravikant & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 410 of 2021
Decided On : 21-05-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Bhanwar Singh Deora, for the Appellant; Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP, Mr. Takhat Singh, for the Respondent.

A compromise between parties in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the NI Act can lead to the setting aside of a conviction, provided the complainant is satisfied with the settlement, as supported by the Supreme Court's ruling.

Headnote:
COMPROMISE - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - The court acknowledged a compromise between the parties post-judgment, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court emphasized the importance of settlement in light of Section 147 of the NI Act and referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, which supports the resolution of disputes through compromise, thereby influencing the court's decision to impose a cost on the petitioner while allowing the settlement.
Fact of the Case:

The parties reached a compromise after the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant expressed a desire not to pursue the matter further.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the parties had settled their dispute and that the complainant had accepted a sum for full and final settlement of the cheque. The court considered the implications of the compromise in light of the relevant legal provisions.
Issues: Whether the compromise between the parties is sufficient to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act, and what costs should be imposed on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 147 of the NI Act and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, which allows for the setting aside of convictions in cases where the parties have reached a settlement.
Result: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act, while imposing a cost of 15% of the cheque amount to be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority.

ORDER

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In the wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, the Court is functioning virtually and abundant caution is being maintained for the safety of all concerned.

2. It is stated at Bar on video call that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties after the judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed by the appellate court, whereby the judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by learned trial has been affirmed.

3. It is borne out from the compromise that the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.

4. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H [2010(5) SCC 66].

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant-respondent No.1 has accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of the cheque, on the satisfaction of the complainant and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (supra), the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, as compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra).

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two weeks from today.

7. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, vide judgment dated 27.04.2017 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act cases), Chittorgarh in Criminal Original Case No.543/2016 (Ravikant & Anr. Vs. Pravin Regar) as affirmed by judgment dated 15.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 136/2017, are hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.

8. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

9. Stay petition also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document