Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Guru Lal - Appellant
Versus
Virender Kumar - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.110 of 2025
Decided on : 05-03-2025
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure - Compounding of offences - The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to six months imprisonment and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- - The parties reached a compromise, and the petitioner deposited the compensation amount - The court allowed the compounding application and set aside the conviction. (Paras 3, 11, 12)
(B) Compounding of offences - The court emphasized that if the entire compensation is paid and the parties have settled, the conviction can be quashed. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted for issuing a cheque that bounced, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. After the appeal was dismissed, the petitioner sought to compound the offence following a compromise with the complainant.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the compounding application, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the petitioner from the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, subject to the deposit of a compounding fee.
Issues: The main issues were whether the offence could be compounded and the implications of the compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be compounded if the parties reach a settlement and the compensation is fully paid.
Result: The present petition is allowed, and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence.
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
CrMP(M) No.2634 of 2024
In view of the no objection, made by learned vice counsel appearing for the respondent, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the delay of 15 days in filing the accompanying Criminal Revision Petition is ordered to be condoned.
Application is, thus, disposed of.
Cr. Revision No.110 of 2025
Petitioner-Guru Lal has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 27.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.3-R/10 of 2024, titled as ‘Guru Lal Vs. Virender Kumar’.
2. By way of judgment dated 27.07.2024, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2022, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter called as the trial Court), in case RBT No.317-3 of 18, titled as ‘Virender Kumar Vs. Guru Lal’.
3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2022, 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 six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.
4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred.
5. Now, the petitioner has moved application, bearing CrMPST No.12027 of 2024, under Section 147 of NI Act, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for compounding of offence on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter and the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, vide Compromise Deed (Annexure A-1). According to the petitioner, he has deposited the entire compensation amount.
6. Statements of both the parties have been recorded, in which, they have deposed that the dispute, with regard to Cheque No.582285, dated 01.10.2018, has been settled between them.
7. The complainant, on 08.01.2025, has stated on oath, regarding the factum, as to why, he has filed the complaint against the accused, in which, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed, which have unsuccessfully been assailed, before the learned First Appellate Court. He has also deposed that the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- directly to him and he had deposited remaining amount of Rs.30,000/- with the learned trial Court. According to him, since, the entire amount of compensation has been paid/deposited by the petitioner, therefore, he has no objection, if the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are ordered to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act.
8. Today, petitioner is present before this Court and he has also stated in the aforesaid terms. He has also deposed that on the basis of the compromise, 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. He has further deposed that he has no objection in case, the amount of Rs.30,000/-, which he has deposited with the learned trial Court, is released in favour of the complainant.
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 the compounding fee, within a period of eight
AI
The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act can be compounded if the parties reach a settlement and the compensation is fully paid.
The court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to a compromise between the parties, resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner.
Compromise between parties in a Section 138 NI Act case allows for quashing of conviction, provided conditions for compounding are met.
The court upheld the principle that a settled dispute between parties can lead to the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, allowing for the quashing of conviction.
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.
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.
Amicable settlement between parties allows for compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the setting aside of conviction.
The court allowed the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, quashing the conviction upon settlement between the parties.
Amicable settlement between parties allows for compounding of offences under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, subject to payment of a compounding fee.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
