IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of promoting compromise and securing the ends of justice, especially in cases where the accused has remitted the entire liability and both parties seek to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner, Dina Nath, a convict under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has come up, in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the judgments passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu [hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned Trial Court’] dated 02.04.2022/12.04.2022 [Annexure P-1], in Complaint No. 211-1 of 2015, titled as Shankar Dass vs. Dina Nath, which was affirmed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu [H.P.] [hereinafter referred to as ‘Learned Appellate Court’] in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2022, titled as Dina Nath vs. Shankar Dass, on 08.08.2022 [Annexure P-2].

2. Consequent upon the conviction and sentence imposed by the Learned Trial Court, which was affirmed by the Learned Appellate Court, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that during the pendency of instant proceedings, the petitioner-accused [Dina Nath], has remitted the entire liability of Rs. 2,80,000/- [Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Thousand] to the respondent-complainant [Shankar Dass], which is borne out from the receipt dated 09.03.2024 [Annexure P-3] and is also corroborated from the statement made by the respondent [Shankar Dass] today in the Court. In this background, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and the Learned counsel for the Respondent Complainant, jointly submit that once the petitioner has discharged/remitted/liquidated his entire liability therefore, the offence may be compounded and the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Trial Court, which stood affirmed by the Learned Appellate Court may kindly be set-aside and the petitioner-accused may kindly be acquitted, so far it relates to accusation/ offence, originating from the cheque in question, in the instant case.

3. Heard Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. J.K. Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General, for respondent No. 2.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant case, it is necessary to have a recap of the statutory provisions of Sections 138 and 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as under:

“138. Dishonor of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account:

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless:

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice; in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section “debt of other liability” means a legally enforceable debt or other l