The court has inherent powers to interfere in matters where parties have paid the entire money and the complainant does not object to clearing all the proceedings. The compounding of the offence is subject to the accused depositing a specified percentage of the cheque amount as per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, Vacation J. - Cr.MP(M) No.160/2020

Heard. I have gone through the contents of the application and I am satisfied that delay of 243 days in filing the revision is bonafide. As such, application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision, is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Revision be registered.

Cr. Revision No._____89___/2020

2. Challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2015 dated 1.6.2019, whereby the first Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, H.P. in complaint No. 40-1-2010 dated 22.6.2015, under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act), the petitioner has come up in this Court for invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The facts of the case apposite to decide the present petition are that the accused issued a cheque in favour of complainant having No.128323 dated 2.2.2010 for Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Hamirpur from his Bank Account No.55126072033 in lieu of debt taken by him from the complainant. Complainant presented this cheque for encashment. Cheque however got dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of accused person. The complainant issued the requisite notice to make up the deficiency of funds, but despite that the petitioner did not make the payment. Accordingly, the aforesaid complaint was filed by the complainant. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and ordered to pay compensation amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

4. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and now the convict has come up with the present Criminal Revision. On 23.1.2020, statement of Shri Ravinder Kumar, son of original complainant, Shri Ramesh Chand, was recorded, who stated that the entire matter stands compromised with the accused. In terms of the compromise, the accused has deposited an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in the trial Court and further stated that he has no objection, if the matter is compounded.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since entire amount as per compromise has been paid, as such, matter be compounded.

6. Therefore, in my considered view, the offence is ordered to be compounded and all proceedings are quashed 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 penalty 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 and where the complainant does not object to clear all the proceedings.

7. In view of the entirety of the facts of the case, as well as judicial precedents, a few of which have been mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in view of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act , is invoked to compound the offence and consequently to quash the above mentioned FIR and consequent proceedings.

8. In Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639 , at p 642, Honble Supreme Court observed as follows:

'The finest hour of Justice arise propitiously when parties, despite falling a