Compounding of offences under Section 147 of the N.I. Act allows for acquittal upon settlement between parties, provided the compounding fee is paid.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Petitioner Subhash Chand has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 16.4.2018, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.46-Cr. A/10 of 2017, titled as, ‘Subhash Chand versus M/s Amba Shakti Ispat Ltd. & anr.’.

2. By way of judgment dated 16.4.2018, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal, which was preferred against the judgment of conviction, and order of sentence, dated 23.6.2017, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), in Criminal case No. 131/3 of 2011, titled as, ‘M/s Amba Shakti Ispat Ltd. vs. Subhash Chand’.

3. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two years and to pay double of the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 9.06,690/-, to the complainant.

4. During pendency of the present revision petition, before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an application, bearing Cr.MP No. 970 of 2025, under Section 147 of N.I. Act, read with Section 528 of BNSS, for compounding the offence, punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

5. In the said application, factual position, with regard to settlement of dispute with the respondent-Company, has been mentioned.

6. Today, the petitioner is present before this Court and made statement, on oath. Petitioner, Subhash Chand, in his statement, has stated, in unequivocal terms, that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,13,340/-before the learned trial Court, and a sum of Rs. 5,10,000/- with the Registry of this Court. He has further deposed that apart from the aforesaid amount, he has made a payment of Rs. 26,700/- in cash, today, to learned counsel representing the respondent-Company.

7. According to the petitioner, the matter has been settled, with regard to cheque No. 952953, dated 11.8.2011, for a sum of Rs. 4,53,346/- He has stated that he has no objection, in case, the aforesaid amount, deposited by him with the learned trial Court and the Registry of this Court, is released, in favour of the complainant. He has further prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and he be acquitted from the offence, punishable, under Section138 of N.I. Act.

8. The petitioner has also put forward his indigent circumstances, seeking leniency in the compounding fee. According to him, he shall deposit the compounding fee, on or before 21.4.2025. According to him, if he fails to deposit the compounding fee, within the time granted by this Court, then, he shall surrender before the learned trial Court, to undergo the substantive sentence.

9. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, in his statement, recorded without oath, before this Court, has accepted the statement made by the petitioner. He has stated that the petitioner has made the entire payment, and he prays that the amount of Rs. 1,13,340/- deposited by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court, and the amount of Rs. 5,10,000/-, deposited by him, before the Registry of this Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the respondent/complainant. He has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the accused (petitioner) is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

10. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, which is permissible under the provisions of Section 147 of the N.I. Act, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the l