Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Hari Om – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No.2223 of 2016
Decided on : 11-03-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Negotiable Instrument Act - Section 138 – Cheque Dishonesty - Prayed to allow present revision and set-aside judgment and order - To enlarge revisionist on bail and realisation of fine may also be stayed during the pendency of this revision - allegation that he had given a cheque to him which was returned unpaid with the endorsement "funds insufficient" by Bank after which a notice asking for payment of same was sent and on failure to repay - whether at this stage of the proceedings when the revisionist has already been convicted by the trial court and his conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act can be compounded – Para 20.
Finding of the Court: Conviction of an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act can be set aside even at appellate stage and the accused can be acquitted on the basis of a compromise with the complainant - 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 offence - 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 .
Result: Revision is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Matter taken up in the revised list. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. Sri Brij Bihari Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is also not present.
2. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned State counsel is present.
3. This revision is of year 2016. This Court, therefore, deems it fit to proceed in the matter on the basis of the record with the assistance of the learned State counsel.
4. The present criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed before this Court with the following prayers:
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to enlarge the revisionist on bail and realisation of fine may also be stayed during the pendency of this revision before this Hon'ble Court.
And/or be pleased to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
5. A complaint dated 21.09.2010 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the revisionist with the allegation that he had given a cheque no.129112 dated 10.07.2010 for Rs.35,000/-to him which was returned unpaid with the endorsement "funds insufficient" by the Bank after which a notice dated 26.08.2010 asking for payment of the same was sent and on failure to repay, the said complaint was filed. In the said matter, the trial court convicted the revisionist vide its judgment and order dated 24.02.2012 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In the event of non-deposit of fine, six months simple imprisonment was imposed on the accused.
6. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order of conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2012 which was decided vide judgment and order dated 23.07.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra by which the judgment and order dated 24.02.2012 of the trial court was affirmed. Subsequently the present revision has been filed before this Court with the prayers as quoted above.
7. The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court vide order dated 16.8.2016 for making an effort between the parties for settling their disputes amicably.
8. As per the office report dated 10.03.2022, a report from the Mediation Centre of this Court is on record which states that mediation between the parties is successful.
9. From perusal of the report of Mediation Centre of this Court, it appears that in pursuance of the said order the mediation proceedings were taken up which ended in a settlement dated 20.1.2017 between the parties and the Mediation succeeded. The parties have settled their grievances and even the dispute arising out in the present matter.
10. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether at this stage of the proceedings when the revisionist has already been convicted by the trial court and his conviction has been upheld by the Appellate Court, the offence under Section 138 of NI Act can be compounded. The issue is no longer res integra. In Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. : (2010) 5 SCC 663, the Apex Court while laying down guidelines as to the levy of costs depending upon stage of the compromise arrived at between the parties, held that conviction of an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act can be set
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
