Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 2076
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Digvijay Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Ambrish Vijay Rohal - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 284 of 2018
Decided On : 07-12-2018
T.K. Verma & Sunil Thakur, Adv., M.L. Sharma, Adv.
The court has the power to quash proceedings under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice, especially when the compensation amount has been paid.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Complaint under Section 138 - Sections 397, 401, 482, and 147 - The court discussed the power conferred upon it under the mentioned sections and the principles for exercise of powers under Section 482 as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The court also referred to the recent judgments in Parbatbhai Aahir, Meters and Instruments Private Limited, Bhangu Trading Co., and N.P. Murugesan cases to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner for dishonour of a cheque. The trial Magistrate convicted the petitioner, who then filed a revision petition challenging the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had paid the entire compensation amount and referred to recent judgments to support the quashing of the complaint in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the court process.
Issues: Whether the matter could be compounded and whether the court had the power to quash the proceedings under Section 482.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can exercise its powers under Section 482 to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice. Recent judgments supported the quashing of the complaint when the compensation amount had been paid.
Final Decision: The substantive sentence of simple imprisonment was modified and substituted with the compensation amount already paid by the petitioner. The amount deposited before the trial court was ordered to be released in favor of the respondent.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ''Act'') against the petitioner on the allegations that the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- handed over by the petitioner to the respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned trial Magistrate and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo a simple imprisonment of one month and also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/-.
2. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 14/31.03.2017, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge (F), Shimla, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.05.2018, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.
3. Today when the case was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before me a photocopy of the Bank Draft drawn in favour of JMIC (VII), Shimla for a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/-. It is also not in dispute that earlier to this an amount of Rs.52,500/- has already been deposited with the trial Court and in addition thereto a sum of Rs.30,000/- stands deposited with the H. P. State Legal Services Authority, as is evident from Annexure A-1 annexed with the petition.
4. Thus, in all, the petitioner has not only paid the entire compensation amount but also paid 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 30,000/- with the H. P. State Legal Services Authority and prays that the present petition be disposed of as having been compounded.
5. However, the moot question is whether a matter of such kind can be compounded. This court is not powerless in such situation and adequate powers have been conferred upon it not only under sections 397 read with Section 401 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) but also under Section 147 of the Act for accepting the settlement entered into between the parties and to quash the proceedings arising out of the proceedings, which have consequently culminated into a settlement. This power has been conferred to subserve the ends of justice or/and to prevent abuse of the process of any Court.
Though, such power is required to be exercised with circumspection and in cases which do not involve heinous and serious offence of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity etc.
6. This question otherwise need not detain this Court any longer in view of the three Judges Bench decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai and others versus State of Gujarat and another, Criminal Appeal No. 1723 of 2017, decided on 4th October, 2017, wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has laid down the following broad principles for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code which read thus:-
"(i) Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court;
(ii) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is noncompoundable.
(iii) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its ju
