Under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, offences can be compounded even post-conviction if both parties reach a compromise and the complainant has no objection.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) against judgment dated 31.05.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 24-S/10 of 2024, whereby the judgment of conviction, dated 15.01.2024, and order of sentence, dated 06.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Shimla, H.P., in Case No. 77-3 of 2016, was affirmed.

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

3. The petitioner/accused-Hira Lal availed loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant-Bank, which was sanctioned on 07.02.2007 and the accused agreed to repay the same as per the agreement entered into with the complainant-Bank, but he failed to repay the same. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were initiated before the Collector Recovery and the petitioner, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant-Bank, issued a cheque bearing No. 081385, dated 30.05.2016, amounting to Rs.5,50,000/-, drawn at H.P. State Co-operative Bank, Sunni. However, the aforesaid cheque, on being presented for encashment, was dishonoured on 01.08.2016 with remarks “insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant-Bank issued legal notice dated 20.08.2016 to the petitioner, but the petitioner-accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated time. Resultantly, the complainant-Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court.

4. 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 six months and to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant-Bank.

5. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 31.05.2024, and the judgment of conviction, dated 15.01.2024, and order of sentence, dated 06.02.2024, passed by the learned Trial Court, was affirmed. Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Hira Lal preferred the instant petition under 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.

6. During the pendency of the instant petition, an application (Cr.MP No. 1475 of 2024) under Section 528 of BNSS read with Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner-accused seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence on the basis of compromise by setting-aside the judgment of conviction, dated 15.01.2024, and order of sentence, dated 06.02.2024, passed by learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., which was affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., vide judgment dated 31.05.2024, in Criminal Appeal No. 24-S/10 of 2024.

7. Today, Shri Sohan Lal, Senior Manager, H.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited, Sunni, Shimla, who has been authorized by the respondent-Bank to make a statement before this Court, is present before this Court and his statement has been recorded and separately placed on the file.

8. In his statement, Shri Sohal Lal, stated that on the complaint filed by the respondent-Bank under Section 138 of the Act, the petitioner/accused was convicted, vide judgment of conviction, dated 15.01.2024, and order of sentence, dated 06.02.2024, for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Shimla, whereby he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, which judgment was further affirmed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla,