Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 2068

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Shaitan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 105/2021
Decided On : 08-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Akshat Paliwal, for the Appellant; Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi Pp for the State, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Mr. Parikshit Nayak, 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 conviction and sentence, provided the complainant is satisfied with the settlement.

Headnote:
COVID-19 - Negotiable Instruments Act - The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act due to a compromise between the parties, emphasizing the importance of settlement in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H, while imposing a cost of 15% of the cheque amount on the petitioner for the late 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 NI Act. The complainant expressed disinterest in pursuing the matter further.
Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the settlement and the complainant's acceptance of the full and final payment, leading to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence should be set aside, but imposed a cost due to the timing of the compromise.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act can be set aside based on a compromise between the parties after the appellate court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 147 of the NI Act and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H, which supports the validity of settlements in cheque bounce cases.
Result: The conviction and sentence of the petitioner were set aside, and the petitioner was ordered to pay 15% of the cheque amount as a cost to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

ORDER

1. In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

2. It is stated at the Bar that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties after the judgment dated 05.12.2020 passed by the appellate court whereby the judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed by the trial court has been affirmed. It is borne out that the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. 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].

3. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant respondent No.2 Ravindra Garg had 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 the 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, since the 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).

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the Deputy Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of eight weeks from today.

5. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, vide judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.30/2013 as affirmed by judgment dated 05.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal Case No.29/2008 CIS No.02/2018, is hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.

6. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document