Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is allowed when there is a genuine compromise between the parties and the entire amount has been paid to the complainant. The court may also consider the deposit made by the accused before the State Legal Services Authority and refer to relevant guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.

ORDER

This revision has been filed against the appeal judgment dated 17.7.2018 passed by XXI Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Cr.A. No.187/2017 (Ravi Kumar Vs. Smt. Punam) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the Act'), whereby judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.4.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.8981/2013 (Smt. Punam Vs. Ravi Kumar) by Shri Anil Kumar Sahu, JMFC, Jabalpur has been affirmed and the appeal preferred by the applicant/accused has been dismissed.

2. In brief the facts of the case as emerged from the record are that respondent/complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the Court of learned JMFC, Jabalpur alleging therein that complainant / respondent Smt. Punam is owner of petrol pump at Benikheda Patan Road, Jabalpur and applicant used to fill petrol and diesel in his vehicle and had purchased petrol and diesel amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent and in lieu of that applicant/accused had issued two cheque dated 28.3.2013 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- - Rs.1,00,000/-. When these were presented in the bank, it stood dishonored. Applicant/accused failed to make the payment despite service of notice within time. Respondent/ complainant filed complaint before the Court of JMFC for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material produced on record by the parties vide judgment dated 19.4.2017 held the applicant/accused guilty for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to 01 year RI and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,72,000/-.

4 . Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned JMFC, applicant/accused preferred an appeal before the Court of Session. Learned ASJ Jabalpur dismissed the same by the impugned judgment dated 17.07.2018 and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned JMFC.

5. Before this Court, parties filed a compromise application under Section 320(4) of Cr.P.C. praying therein to compound the offence and as such this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the offence and acquit the accused. Counsel for the parties appeared before this Court and respondent complainant has admitted that she has received the entire amount from the applicant/accused and they have amicably settled the matter. Counsel for the applicant and husband of respondent Shri Ashok Grover along with his counsel were directed to remain present before the Registrar (J-II) of this Court for verification of compromise. Registrar (J-II) after recording statement of complainant's husband - Ashok Grover has submitted its verification report and as per the report, parties have entered into compromise on their own free will and volition. Therefore, compromise appears to be genuine. Even before this Court, it has been admitted by complainant's husband that she has entered into compromise with the applicant and has received entire amount and entered compromise without any external pressure. Therefore, she has no objection in compounding of the offence.

6. Under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, every offence punishable under that Act has been made compoundable.

7. Therefore, having taken into consideration the fact that entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent/complainant and parties have amicably settled their dispute, this Court see no obstruction in allowing the prayer made on behalf of the applicant for compounding of offence while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act.

8. It is also noteworthy that in terms of guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodardas S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, applicant/accused has deposited Rs.30,000/- i.e. 15% of the cheque amount before State Legal Services Authority on 16.2.2023 and receipt of the same has been filed in the Court. In that case, it