The court has the power to allow the compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, even at the appellate stage of the proceedings, based on the settlement of the dispute between the parties.

Ravi Nath Verma, J. - Invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code'), the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment dated 14.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Commissioner-VI, Ranchi in Cr. Appeal No.75 of 2015 whereby and where under the judgment of conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and order of sentence has been affirmed and the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.8,50,000/- to the complainant-opposite party no.2 as compensation.

2. Heard the, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned counsel representing the State.

3. It is not necessary to delve into the facts leading to the institution of proceedings, as the petitioner and opposite party no.2 have settled their dispute and have filed a joint compromise petition before this Court with a prayer to compound the offence as contemplated under Section 147 of the Act. However, a brief statement of facts is necessary for the proper appreciation: At the instance of present complainant-opposite party no.2-Ganesh Sahu, the Complaint Case no.- 400 of 2012 was filed against the present petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short “the Act”) with the allegation that the accused petitioner had taken a friendly loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant and in discharge of that, the accused had issued four cheques containing Rs.2,00,000/- each in favour of the complainant but when the said cheques were presented for encashment in bank, it stood dishonoured due to “insufficient fund”. The complaint sent a legal notice to the accused-petitioner in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Thereafter following the other formalities, the present complaint was filed when the accused-petitioner failed to pay the said amount. It appears from the record that the trial court after examination of the witnesses and considering the allegation and evidences on record, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one and half year and also directed the accused to pay a compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- within a month.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions court and after hearing both the parties, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Hence, this revision.

5. During pendency of this revision application, both the parties settled their dispute outside the court and filed a joint compromise petition in court by way of I.A. No.6182 of 2015. After the direction of this Court to both the parties to be physically present in Court, they were present in Court and on enquiry, they fairly admitted the factum of compromise and filing of the joint compromise petition in this Court.

6. Apparently, the parties were involved in transaction of friendly loan where after the disputes had arisen on account of the dishonour of the cheque issued by the petitioner. The parties went through several stages of litigation and before this Court, they have settled their disputes and filed the joint compromise petition. In the case of O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana, (2000) 1 SCC 762, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted the compounding of the offence even though the conviction of the petitioners of that case had been upheld by all the courts after noting that the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“Taking into consideration the nature of the offence in question and the fact that the complainant and the accused has already entered into a compromise, we think it appropriate to grant permission in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case to compound.”

7. The similar issues were also involved in Siva Sankar