Offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are compoundable at any stage of litigation, including the revision stage, as they are primarily civil wrongs. Courts possess the discretion to reduce compounding costs based on the mitigating circumstances of the accused.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The challenge in the present criminal revision is to the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, vide which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the Act’) and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-

2. The facts relevant as narrated in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act by complainant-respondent No.2 are that in lieu of allurement of accused-petitioner, he had invested a sum of Rs.15 lakhs in joint venture of properties, thereafter, on a complaint made by him, the accused-petitioner agreed to pay Rs.20 lakhs as full and final amount and in discharge of which, he had issued a cheque bearing No.057589 dated 17.12.2012. However, on presentation thereof, the same was returned unpaid with the remarks “Drawer’s signatures differ and Funds Insufficient” vide memo dated 18.12.2012. Despite issuance of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment within the stipulated period. The proceedings against her were initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. On finding prima facie case under Section 138 of the NI Act, notice of accusation was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 and also led documentary evidence. On closure of his evidence, statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied all the allegations raised against him and pleaded innocence. In defence, he examined Boota Singh and Madan Lal, as DW1 and DW2, respectively.

4. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant has successfully proved his case against the petitioner-accused, and convicted and sentenced him, as mentioned in para no.1 above. Aggrieved convict-petitioner filed appeal, which was dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide impugned judgment dated 23.08.2017.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the petition, a settlement has been arrived at between the parties and matter between them was resolved. He, thus, prays the offence under Section 138 N.I.Act be compounded and fee with regard to the same be waived off, in view of the fact that the petitioner, aged 50 years; is a poor person; having no source of income and only bread earner of the family. The petitioner has with great difficulty managed to collect the money and settled the dispute as he wanted to put an end to the same, 13 years having gone by.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 admits the factum of compromise and states that as per the settlement, the complainant has received the agreed amount. Thus, he, on instructions, submits that there is no objection, if the prayer made by the petitioner is accepted.

8. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court in B.V. Seshaiah vs. The State of Telangana and another 2023 Live Law (SC) 75, wherein it was held thus:

“10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta1,this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a