Point of Law: 8. While exercising inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of crime and its social impact and it cautioned Courts not to exercise power for quashing proceedings in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity etc.

ORDER :

The present petition maintained under Section 482 Cr.P.C to compound the offence committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in Criminal Case No.254/3 of 2018 titled Rajinder Singh vs. Natwar Bhauta and further to quash the sentence of one year awarded to the petitioner alongwith all consequential proceedings arising out of the said F.I.R; pending before the learned trial Court.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, that he had purchased apple amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and instead of paying cash, he had handed over cheque dated 8.8.2018, to discharge his legal liability. The petitioner issued cheque amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Branch Khadrala, but the same was dishonoured, vide memo dated 2.9.2018. Thereafter, the respondent issued legal notice dated 15.9.2018 through registered post, whereby the petitioner was called upon to make payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period of 15 days from the receipt of notice. Despite delivery of notice, the petitioner failed to respond it. Hence, the present petition.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 3.12.2019/23.12.2019, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,80,000/-.

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, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 28.9.2021, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. Since after recording of the afore judgment, petitioner entered into compromise with the complainant and paid the entire amount of compensation, he has approached this Court by way of instant proceedings for compounding of offence and thereafter his acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below.

5. While inviting attention of this Court to the compromise (Annexure P-3), Mr. V.B. Verma, learned counsel for 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.PC can quash the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial court.

6. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondent-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 quashed and set-aside and offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act, is ordered to be compounded while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act.

7. Since the petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC, this Court deems it fit to consider the present petition in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and others versus State of Punjab and another (2014) 6 SCC 466, whereby Hon’ble Apex Court has formulated guidelines for accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. Perusal of judgment referred above clearly depicts that in para 29.1, Hon’ble Apex Court has returned the findings that power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in th