The Court can exercise inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings when parties have settled the matter and paid the entire amount. Judicial precedents can be relied upon to support decisions regarding compounding of offences and waiver of compounding fee.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

The matter for consideration before this Court is the criminal revision petition, filed under sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, starting now to be called as CrPC. The petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 5.1.2019, passed by Sessions Judge, Solan, dismissing his appeal, (Criminal appeal no. 2-S/10 of 2018) and upholding the decision of the trial Court, dated 19-12-2017, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. 2, Solan, H.P., (Case no. 298-3/2015, Suman Sehgal Vs. Manoj Chauhan), convicting the accused of commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act, from now on called as NIA. The petition was put up on 11-4- 2019, when this Court issued notices to the respondent/complainant.

2. On 19-06-2016, the learned counsel for the parties stated that the parties have entered into a compromise and they have settled all the money transactions in terms of the same. Petitioner has also moved an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Cr.M.P. No. 1051 of 2019) for compounding of the offence in question, annexing therewith the compromise deed (Annexure-A).

3. Today the petitioner, who is present in the Court, has stated that the entire settled amount stands paid to the complainant-respondent and now nothing is outstanding. His statement to this effect also stands recorded separately in Court today. The learned Counsel for the complainant-Respondent does not dispute this statement.

4. 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.2,50,000/- and assured to return that amount. In lieu thereof, the accused issued one cheque for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, bearing No. 002309 dated 29-07-2015 drawn at Union Bank of India, the Mall Solan, Tehsil & District- Solan, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented this cheque for encashment in State Bank of India, The Mall Solan, H.P., but it was returned by the bank as dishonoured, on account of insufficient funds, in the account of the accused.

(b) The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 20-08-2015 to the accused, calling upon him to make the payment of cheque amount, within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. Despite the service of notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount.

(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 two months and was also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- lacs. In case of default in payment of the compensation amount, he shall have to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

(f) The appellate Court upheld the judgment of conviction. Resultantly, petitioner filed the present criminal revision.

5. 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, and entire settled 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.

6. The jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that the drawer of the cheque, who signs the promissory instrument, honors his commitment, made during a transaction. The legislative intention is not to send the people to suffer incarceration because of the bouncing of the cheques but to provide them an opportunity to pay. These proceedings are to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penal laws.

7. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is further