Point of law: Dishonour of Cheque – Compounding of offence on payment

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Varma, J.

1. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 9.12.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Amroha/ J.P. Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2018 (Iqrar Ahmad vs. State of U.P.), whereby the judgment and sentence dated 6.7.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur Amroha/ J.P. Nagar has been confirmed.

2. The revisionist/applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and awarded sentence to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,35,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for three months.

3. In brief, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against the revisionist with the allegation that cheque no.77163 dated 10.1.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-issued by the revisionist was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The opposite party no.2 filed a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, Hasanpur Amroha/ J.P. Nagar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The proceedings of the case, ultimately resulted in order of conviction. Against the order of conviction an appeal was preferred and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and confirmed the judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that now the rival parties have sorted out their dispute and have arrived at a compromise. In this regard, a compromise deed dated 11.12.2020 has been annexed as Annexure SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has filed a short counter affidavit and stated that he had received the entire cheque amount of Rs.1,35,000/-and does not want to continue the criminal proceedings and the matter may be decided in terms of the compromise deed.

6. Heard Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anmol Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Sri Nikhil Chiturvedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

7. The law regarding compounding of offence under Negotiable Instruments Act is no more res integra and the offences under the said Act can be compounded on any stage of the proceedings.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammad and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 798 has held as under :

“7. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the said position had been accepted by this Court in various decisions, such as in the case of O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 762], wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entered into a compromise with the complainant and the complainant had appeared through counsel and stated that the entire money had been received by him and he had no objection if the conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is set aside, the Hon'ble Judges thought it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to compound the offence. While doing so, this Court also indicated that necessarily the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Act stood annulled.

8. The said view has been consistently followed in the case of (1) Anil Kumar Haritwal & Anr. vs. Alka Gupta & Anr. [(2004) 4 SCC 366]; (2) B.C. Seshadri vs. B.N. Suryanarayana Rao [2004 (11) SCC 510] decided by a three Judge Bench; (3) G. Sivarajan vs. Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. [(2004 11 SCC 400]; (4) Kishore Kumar vs. J.K. Corporation Ltd. [(2004 13 SCC 494]; (5) Sailesh Shyam Parsekar vs. Baban [(2005 (4) SCC 162]; (6) K. Gyansagar vs. Ganesh Gupta & Anr. [(2005) 7 SCC 54]; (7) K.J.B.L. Rama Reddy vs. Annapurna Seeds & Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 632]; (8) Sayeed Ishaque Menon vs. Ansari Naseer Ahmed [(2005) 12 SCC 140]; (9) Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 305], wherein some of the earlier decisions have been noticed; and (10) Sudheer Kumar vs. Manakkandi M.