Under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, offences are compoundable, allowing for quashing of conviction upon mutual settlement between parties.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., against judgment dated 03.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. Camp at Barsar, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2022, whereby the judgment of conviction, dated 17.05.2022, and order of sentence, dated 18.05.2022, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Complaint No. 13-I-2017, was affirmed.

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

2(a). The Complainant-Bank, through its Branch Manager, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., filed a complaint against the petitioner-accused, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner-accused approached the Complainant-Bank for granting loan in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- for purchasing a Nano car. On 03.11.2014 the complainant-Bank disbursed the aforesaid amount to the petitioner-accused. The petitioner-accused, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant-Bank, issued a cheque bearing No. 053317, dated 17.02.2017, drawn at Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Branch at Barsar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., amounting to Rs.1,63,541/- in favoaur of the complainant-Bank. However, the aforesaid cheque, on being presented for encashment by the complainant-Bank, was dishonoured with the remarks “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the complainant-Bank issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused on 04.03.2017, but despite receiving the same, he failed to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque amount. Resultantly, the complainant-Bank 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 six months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed and judgment of conviction, dated 17.05.2022, and order of sentence, dated 18.05.2022, was upheld. Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Raj Kumar preferred the instant petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. 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. 136 of 2025) under Sections 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner-accused, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence by setting-aside the judgment of conviction, dated 17.05.2022, and order of sentence, dated 18.05.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barsar, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Complaint No. 13-I-2017, and affirmed vide judgment dated 03.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Hamirpur, H.P., Camp at Barsar, in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2022.

6. On 24.12.2024 the statement of Shri Yuvraj Singh Guleria, Branch Manager, H.P. Gramin Bank, Branch at Barsar, District Hamirpur H.P., was recorded, and today, the statement of the petitioner-accused, who is present before this Court, has also been recorded. Both the statements have been separately placed on the file.

7. In his statement, Shri Yuvraj Singh Guleria, Branch Manager, stated that on the basis of the complaint of the respondent-Bank, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was registered against the petitioner-accused. He has further stated that now the respondent-Bank has compromised the matter with the petitioner-accused in full and final settlement of the cheque amount by way of one time settlement. Therefore, the respondent-Bank has no objection in case the matter is compounded and judgment of co