The court emphasized the need to discourage chronic litigants from delaying the composition of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the valid means to encourage compounding at the earliest.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1. The petitioner had filed the present revision petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.10.2021, passed by the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Baghapurana, District Moga, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, alongwith default stipulation and also against the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner was ordered to be dismissed.

2. As per the case of the respondent/complainant, the petitioner/accused was an agriculturist and used to sell his crop through the respondent/complainant firm and used to take loan. An amount of Rs.6,29,338/- was due towards the petitioner/accused. Ultimately, in discharge of his legal liability, the petitioner/accused had issued a cheque bearing No.097921 on 23.09.2017 for Rs.6,29,338/- in favour of the respondent/complainant. However, when the cheque was presented with the Banker by the respondent/complainant, it was returned back dishonoured with the remark “Insufficient Funds” vide memo dated 16.11.2017. The respondent/complainant served a registered legal notice upon the accused/petitioner on 14.12.2017, but the petitioner/accused did not return the amount and the respondent/complainant was constrained to file a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioner.

3. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner/accused has filed an application under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for seeking permission to compound the offence.

4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, the parties have compromised the matter and the petitioner had deposited the cheque amount of Rs. 6,29,338/- with the Registry of this Court, which has been disbursed to the respondent/complainant. Besides this, the petitioner had already paid 20% of the cheque amount to the respondent/complainant before the Trial Court. Consequently, a prayer was made to permit the petitioner/accused to compound the offences.

5. A short reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Hari Bhushan son of Darshan Kumar, respondent/complainant and he has admitted the factum of compromise and stated that the parties had resolved all their disputes.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/complainant submits that he has no objection, in case the petitioner/accused is ordered to be acquitted, on the basis of the compromise between the parties.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record carefully.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 (SC) 1907: 2010(2) RCR (Criminal 851) as follows:-

15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that