Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Bangaru Proprietor M/s. Bangs & Bangs, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Manju Parkavi - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1607 of 2017
Decided On : 26-08-2022
For the Petitioner:S. Srinivasa Narayanan, Advocate. For the Respondent:G. Naveen, A. Kalaivanan, Advocates.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the compounding of the offense under Section 138 of NI Act based on the compromise reached between the parties.
Headnote:
Criminal Revision - Negotiable Instrument Act - The court allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction under Section 138 of NI Act due to a compromise reached between the parties, leading to the compounding of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner issued two cheques which were dishonored for insufficient funds. The lower court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment and pay compensation. The petitioner filed a criminal revision against this conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the criminal revision petition based on the compromise reached between the parties, leading to the compounding of the offense under Section 138 of NI Act. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were set aside, and the petitioner was set at liberty.
Issues: The main issue was the compounding of the offense under Section 138 of NI Act based on the compromise reached between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the compromise reached between the parties, as evidenced by the Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading to the compounding of the offense under Section 138 of NI Act.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court were set aside, leading to the petitioner being set at liberty.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision petition has been filed, under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the judgement dated 23.10.2017 passed in C.A.No.26 of 2017, on the file of the XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and the judgement dated 12.01.2017 passed in C.C.No.3373 of 2016, on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet.)
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the Judgement of the XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai passed in C.A.No.26 of 2017 dated 23.10.2017, confirming the conviction dated 12.01.2017 imposed in judgement made in C.C.No.3373 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the petitioner had issued two cheques for a sum of Rs.2,07,875/- (Rupees two lakhs seven thousand, eight hundren and seventy five only) and when the said cheques were presented for collection, they was dishonoured for the reason ''Funds Insufficient''. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, convicted the petitioner, for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for a period of six months and directed to pay the cheque amount as compensation. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings, the petitioner has preferred the Criminal Revision.
4. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the counsels on either side submitted that the parties have arrived at a compromise. They have filed a Joint Memo of Compromise signed by the petitioner and the respondent and their respective counsels. The relevant portions of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise dated 23.08.2022 reads as follows:
2. It is submitted that during the pending of the above Crl.R.C the parties have decided to settle the dispute amicably between them and acordingly after negotiation the respondent herein agreed to receive a sum of Rs.2,07,875/- which is the amount covered under the two cheques. As the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.20,787/- as deposited on 16.03.2017 in pursuance of Sessions Court order in Crl.M.P.No.2926 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2017 and also further deposited Rs.50,000/- on 19.04.2018 in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 21.12.2016 in the above CrlR.C.No.1607 of 2017. Thus totally a sum of Rs.70,797/- had been deposited by him before the trial Court in C.C.No.3373 of 2016. Therefore, the remaining amount payable by the petitioner is Rs.1,37,088/- only. It is submitted that in such circumstances the petitioner agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,37,088/- and considering the long standing business relationship the respondent has agreed to compromise the matter amicably after receipt of the above said amount.
8. The petitioner/accused have no objection to withdraw the amounts deposited by the petitioner viz., Rs.20,787/- on 16.03.2017 in compliance of the Sessions Court order in Cr.M.P.No.2926 of 2017 in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2017 and Rs.50,000/- on 19.04.2018 deposited in complaince of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 21.12.2016 in the above CrlR.C.No.1607 of 2017.
5. Both the petitioner and the respondent were present before this Court today and confirmed the execution of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise and the respondent has agreed to receive the amount in terms of the compromise. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, stands compounded. The Judgement of the learned XVIII Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, passed in C.A.No.26 of 2017 dated 23.10.2017, confirming the conviction dated 04.01.2016 imposed in Judgement made in C.C.No.3373 of 2016 on the file of the Learned Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate Fast Track Court-III, Saidapet, is set aside. The petitioner is set at liberty.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had
