Compounding of offences under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permissible even post-conviction, overriding general provisions of the CrPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 438 read with Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), against judgment dated 29.10.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Sirmaur, at Nahan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 06-Cr.A/10 of 2024, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 08.12.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in CIS Case No. 131 of 2018, was modified and sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years to six months and fine amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,05,000/-.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, can succinctly be summarized as under:

(a) The accused-Balbir Singh took a friendly loan of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant-Ram Krishan and he agreed to repay the same within a period of six months, i.e., on or before 19.11.2017. On 20.05.2017 the accused, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant, issued two cheques of HDFC Bank, Nahan, bearing No. 000046 and 000047, dated 19.11.2017 of Rs. 40,000/- each, in favour of the complainant. The accused also undertook that in case he failed to return the loan amount, the complainant could recover the same from the aforesaid cheques and to this extent he gave an affidavit on 20.05.2017, which was duly notarized by Notary Neeraj Rani, Advocate. However, the aforesaid cheques, on being presented for encashment, were dishonoured with remakrs “funds insufficient.”Thereafter, the complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused on 26.02.2018, but despite receiving the same on 03.03.2018, he refused to make the payment of the aforesaid cheques. Resultantly, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.

4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was partly allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.12.2023, was modified. The sentence of imprisonment was reduced from two years to six months and fine amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.1,05,000/-. Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Balbir Singh preferred the instant petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS with a prayer that his petition be allowed and the impugned judgments and order of sentence passed by the learned Courts below be set-aside and he be acquitted.

5. During the pendency of the instant petition, an application (Cr.MP No. 987 of 2025) under Section 147 of the Act read with Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner-accused, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence by setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated, 08.12.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., in CIS Case No. 131 of 2018, and modified/affirmed vide judgment dated 29.10.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 06-Cr.A/10 of 2024.

6. Today, the petitioner-accused and Shri Vipin Bhatia, Advocate, who has been authorized by the respondent-complainant to make a statement before this Court, are present before this Court and their statements have been recorded and separately placed on the file.

7. In his statement, Shri Vipin Bhatia, Advocate, stated that he has been authorized by the respondent to make statement on his behalf. He has further stated that during the pendency of the presen