Compounding of offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act is permissible when parties reach an out-of-court settlement, leading to acquittal.

ORDER

This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Crl.Appeal No.584/2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) II, Thiruvananthapuram. He was the accused in C.C.No.218/2002 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I.Act'). The learned Magistrate convicted the accused u/s.138 of the and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and directed to pay compensation of ₹13,000/- to the complainant u/s.357(3) Cr.P.C. Against that, the accused preferred Crl. Appeal No.584/2005, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc) II, Thiruvananthapuram. Being aggrieved by that, the accused preferred this revision petition.

2. The complainant's case is that it was engaged in the business of Consumer Credit Facility. Towards the part payment of a debt taken by the accused from the complainant, the accused issued a cheque for ₹13,000/- dated 19.8.2002 drawn on Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank, Attukal Branch. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the amount by giving a notice in writing. But, there was no repayment, hence the complaint. In the trial Court, Principal Officer of the Company was examined as PW1. His documentary evidence were marked as Exts.P1 to P7. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He examined DW1 and marked Exts.D1 and D2.

3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the parties have settled the matter out of Court through the intervention of mediators and filed Crl.M.A. No.5091/2016. The revision petitioner and the present Chief Manager of the 1st respondent have signed the compromise petition. Sub Inspector of Police, Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram reported that the former Manager Sri. Raveendran. S. died and produced the Death Certificate, which is marked as Ext.C1. In the circumstances, the present Manager signed in Crl.M.A. No.5091/2016. When both parties settled the dispute out of court, there is no objection in allowing the compromise petition. In the circumstances, Crl.M.A.No.5091/2016 is allowed. According to Section 147 Cr.P.C, notwithstanding anything maintained in Cr.P.C, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. Section 320 (6) of Cr.P.C empowers the High Court to compound any offence in exercise of its revisional power against such person, who is competent to compound the offence. When offence is compounded, accused is entitled to get an acquittal under Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C. In view of the compromise, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court under Section 138 of the N.I.Act is set aside and the accused is acquitted and set at liberty, provided in view of the decision of Apex Court inDamodar S. Prabhu v.Sayed Babulal ( AIR 2010 SC 1907 ), the revision petitioner has to pay ₹500/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee within one week from today.

Crl.R.P. is allowed.

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

acd