The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the guidelines for compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, Distt. Shimla, in NI Act Complaint No.124-3 of 2012, the convict challenged the same before the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. It was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 33-T/10 of 2014, titled as Tara Chand vs. Rakesh Kashyap. Vide order dated 21.11.2015, the said appeal was dismissed in default. Feeling aggrieved, the convict filed a Criminal Revision, alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for extension of time in filing the revision. This petition was listed on 19th June, 2019, when the counsel for the petitioner and respondent were present. After issuing notice to the respondent, notice on his behalf was accepted by Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate. The respondent intended not to file reply to application for extension of time and in fact he did not oppose, if the same was allowed. Thereafter, vide order dated 19th June, 2019, the application for condonation of delay had been allowed.

2. At this stage, counsel for the parties stated that the entire matter has been compromised. Both the complainant and accused were present in Court. On this the statements of the complainant as well as accused were recorded, in which they said that they had compromised the matter, without any coercion, duress and pressure.

3. The gist of the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is as follows:-

(a) The accused approached the complainant and requested to give him a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs and assured to return that amount. In lieu thereof, the accused issued one cheque for a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs, dtd. 19.6.2018, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented this cheque for encashment in PNB on 19.6.2018 itself but it was returned by the bank as dishonoured, on account of insufficient fund in the account of the accused.

(b) The complainant got issued a legal notice Ext.CW-1/C to the accused, calling upon him to make the payment of cheque amount, within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. The legal notice was received back undelivered as the accused was not found in the house.

(c) Resultantly, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act.

(d) Learned trial Court put notice of accusation to the accused.

(e) After completion of the trial, accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1.60 lacks.

(f) On 21.11.2015, the appeal against the impugned judgment was dismissed in default. Resultantly, petitioner filed the present criminal revision.

4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that in view of the fact that the parties have compromised the matter amicably, and entire compensation amount has been paid by the accused, therefore, this matter be compounded in terms of the Act, and the consequential proceedings arising thereof be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for respondent consented for such closure and therefore, the offence is ordered to be compounded on the following grounds:-

(i) The jurisprudence behind the N.I. Act, is that the business transactions are honoured. The legislative intention is not to send the people to suffer incarceration because their cheque was bounced. These proceedings are simply to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penal laws.

(ii) This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are further supported by Section 147 of the N.I. Act to interfere in this kind of matter, where parties have paid the entire money to close all the proceedings.

5. In view of the entirety of the facts of the case, as well as judicial precedents, a few of which have been mentioned hereinafter, I am of the considered opinion