The court determined that offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded post-conviction, overriding standard compounding rules in the CrPC, based on a settlement between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

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 04.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, in Criminal Appeal No. 118-R/10 of 2023, whereby the judgment of conviction, dated 23.08.2023, and order of sentence, dated 24.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 81-3 of 2020, 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 Manager Shri Fakir Chand Rana, filed a complaint against the petitioner- accused, wherein it was alleged that on 20.03.2012 the petitioner-accused took loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from the complainant-Bank for purchasing a vehicle. The petitioner- accused purchased the vehicle, but thereafter he did not care about repayment of the loan as well as interest amount, as per the scheduled and a sum of Rs.5,23,027/- was accumulated till 30.05.2020. It was further averred that the petitioner-accused, in order to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant-Bank, issued a cheque bearing No. 050634, dated 30.05.2020, amounting to Rs.5,23,027/-, drawn at Central Bank of India, branch at Khadrala. However, the aforesaid cheque, on being presented for encashment, was dishonoured with remakrs “insufficient funds”. Thereafter, the complainant-Bank issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused on 03.06.2020, but despite receiving the same, he failed to make the payment of the aforesaid cheque amount. 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 read with Section 142 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- to the complainant.

4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed and judgment of conviction, dated 23.08.2023, and order of sentence, dated 24.08.2023, was upheld. Hence, accused/petitioner/convict-Veer Bahder 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. 53078 of 2024) under Sections 528 , 359(6) 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 by setting-aside the judgment of conviction, dated 23.08.2023, and order of sentence, dated 24.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case No. 81-3 of 2020, and affirmed vide judgment dated 04.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Rohru, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 118-R/10 of 2023.

6. On 02.01.2025 the statement of Shri Pradeep Kumar, Chief Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Shimla, who was authorized by the Complainant-Bank to make a statement before this Court, was recorded, and today, the statement of the petitioner-accused, who is present