IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Subhash Chand - Petitioner
Versus
H.P. Gramin Bank & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.86 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2025
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Criminal Revision Petition - Conviction and sentence for dishonor of cheque - The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. The appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The petitioner subsequently settled the compensation amount with the respondent-Bank and sought to compound the offence. (Paras 3 , 12 , 13 )
(B) Compounding of Offences - The petitioner is permitted to compound the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act, provided he deposits the compounding fee as directed. The court emphasized that failure to deposit the fee would revive the original conviction. (Paras 10 , 14 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonoring a cheque. After the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner settled the matter with the Bank and sought to compound the offence.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the compounding of the offence and set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could compound the offence after conviction and the conditions for such compounding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be compounded post-conviction if the parties reach a settlement, subject to the payment of a compounding fee.
Result: Petition allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
(Virender Singh, J.)
Petitioner-Subhash Chand has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 30.12.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in RBT Criminal Appeal No.214-P/IV/2023, titled as ‘Subhash Chand Vs. H.P. Gramin Bank & Anr.’.
2. By way of judgment dated 30.12.2024, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2023, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter called as the trial Court), in Criminal Complaint No.193-III/2022, titled as ‘H.P. Gramin Bank Vs. Subhash Chand’.
3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2023, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.
4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred.
5. Now, the petitioner has moved application, bearing CrMP No.1089 of 2025, under Section 147 of NI Act, for compounding of offence on the ground that he has already settled the entire compensation amount with the respondent-Bank.
6. Today, statements of both the parties have been recorded, in which, they have deposed that the dispute, with regard to Cheque No.626891, dated 01.10.2022, has been settled between them.
7. Today i.e. 07.04.2025, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Branch Manager of respondent-Bank, has stated on oath, regarding the factum, as to why, the Bank has filed the complaint against the accused (petitioner herein), in which, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed, which has unsuccessfully been assailed, before the learned Appellate Court. He has also deposed that the matter has been settled between the respondent- Bank and the petitioner, qua Cheque No.626891, dated 01.10.2022.
7.1. According to him, the respondent-Bank has no objection, if the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are ordered to be set aside. It has been submitted by the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank that out of the compensation amount, Rs.80,000/- has been deposited with the Bank on 26.12.2024 and the amount of Rs.20,000/-, which the petitioner has deposited with the learned trial Court, may be released in favour of respondent-Bank.
8. Petitioner-Subhash Chand is also present before this Court and has also stated in the aforesaid terms. He has also deposed that on the basis of the settlement, the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and he may be acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
8.1. Petitioner has further deposed that out of the compensation amount, he has deposited Rs.80,000/- with the respondent-Bank on 26.12.2024. He has also deposited Rs.20,000/- with the learned trial Court on 31.10.2023 and he has no objection in case, the amount of Rs.20,000/-, so deposited by him with the learned trial Court, is released in favour of respondent-Bank.
9. In addition to this, the petitioner has also put forward the indigent circumstances, by stating that some relaxation may be given in the compounding fee.
10. Apart from this, the petitioner-accused has also given an undertaking that he will deposit 50% of the compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla and remaining 50% of the compounding fee with H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within a period of eight weeks from today, and in case, he fails to deposit the compounding fee, within the stipulated period
The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded post-conviction if the parties reach a settlement, subject to the payment of a compounding fee.
The court permitted the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act after the parties settled the dispute, emphasizing the role of mutual agreement in such cases.
Settlement between parties allows for compounding of offences under Section 147 of the NI Act, leading to acquittal.
The court permitted the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act following an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the procedural requirements for such compounding.
Amicable settlement between parties allows for compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the setting aside of conviction.
Amicable settlement between parties allows for compounding of offences under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, subject to payment of a compounding fee.
The court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act after the parties reached a settlement, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolutions.
The court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the parties settled the matter, emphasizing the importance of amicable resolution.
The court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act based on a settlement between the parties, emphasizing the significance of amicable resolutions.
The court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, quashing the conviction upon settlement between the parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.