Point of Law : Operation or effect of a general Act can be curtailed by special Act even if a general Act contains a non-obstante clause and as such, provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C. would not come in the way in recording the compromise or in compounding the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.

ORDER :

1. Instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to compound the offence committed by the petitioner under Section138 of the Act in Case No. 58-3 of 2012/11 titled as Ram Rattan vs. Hira Nand decided by the learned JMFC-III, Shimla, vide judgment/order dated 24.6.2013/16.7.2013 and further to quash the sentence of six months awarded to the petitioner.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent- complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Shimla, alleging therein that the accused borrowed sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- from him and with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- (Ext.PW1/A), but fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, vide judgment/order dated 24.6.2013/16.7.2013, convicted and sentenced him to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the complainant.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.2.2015. Though aforesaid judgment was laid challenge in this court by way of Cr.R. No. 148 of 2015, but same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 1.7.2016. Since after recording of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, petitioner has entered into compromise with the respondent-complainant, whereby he has paid the entire sum of compensation awarded by the court below to the respondent-complainant, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for setting aside judgment of conviction dated 24.6.2013, passed by the learned JMFC-III Shimla, further upheld by this Court in Cr.R. No. 148 of 2015.

5. While inviting attention of this Court to the compromise (Annexure P-2), Mr. Naresh Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, argued that since entire payment of compensation awarded by the learned trial court stands paid to the respondent-complainant, this Court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial court. While placing reliance on the judgment dated 21.12.2021, passed by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 2499 of 2021 in Cr.R. No. 79 of 2019, Geeta Devi vs. Surinder Singh and Another, Mr. Naresh Sharma, learned counsel submitted that this Court has ample powers under Section 147 of the Act to compound the offence in those cases where accused already stands convicted. Apart from above, Mr. Sharma, also placed reliance upon judgment dated 13.8.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Rishi Mohan Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Another, wherein court while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. annulled the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court, further affirmed by High Court on the basis of compromise arrived inter-se parties.

6. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-complainant, while fairly admitting factum with regard to compromise arrived inter-se parties, submitted that since entire amount of compensation awarded by the court below stands received by the respondent-complainant, he shall have no objection in case judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial court is