Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 7881
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ
ATUL SAXENA – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH MOTWANI – Respondent
SLP(Crl) No.-009649 - 2024
Mr. Kartik Pandey, Adv., Mr. Pooja Kumar, Adv., Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR, Mr. Madiya Musthaq, Adv., Mr. Pranjal Kishore, AOR
The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at any stage with the consent of the complainant, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and Section 147 - Conviction under Section 138 confirmed in appeal - Compromise Deed produced but not acted upon - Respondent consents to compound the offence - Court held that the offence can be compounded at any stage as per precedent. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - High Court declined to invoke powers under this section in the Revision Petition. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, and the conviction was upheld in appeal. A Compromise Deed was presented but not acted upon, leading to the dismissal of the Revision Petition.
Findings of Court:
The offence for which the petitioner was convicted stands compounded, and the conviction and sentence are set aside.
Issues: Whether the offence can be compounded after conviction and the applicability of Section 147 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the offence can be compounded at any stage if the complainant consents, thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Result: The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of, and the conviction is set aside.
Mr. Pranjal Kishore, Advocate on Caveat, accepts and waives notice on behalf of respondent.
The petitioner seeks leave to challenge the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 22636 of 2024.
The petitioner stands convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act’) in Criminal Case No. 2103/2014.
The conviction was confirmed in the appeal and thereafter, the petitioner had successfully challenged a Revision Petition. During the proceedings before the High Court, the petitioner produced a Compromise Deed entered between himself and the complainant.
However, the same was not acted upon in the Revision Petition and the High Court held that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
could not be invoked. Accordingly, it was dismissed. Hence, this Special Leave Petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as also the learned counsel, who appears on caveat, on behalf of the respondents.
The learned counsel for the respondent, on caveat, submits that the petitioner had issued a Demand Draft of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and has also issued two crossed cheques i.e., Crossed Cheque Nos. 226156 and 226157 of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each.
- It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that the respondent, on accepting the Demand Draft and the crossed cheques, is prepared to compound the offence in terms of Section 147 of the NI Act.
- In the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H (2010 (5) SCC 663), the offence can be compounded in terms of Section 147 of the NI Act, at any stage.
- In the said circumstances, since the respondent/complainant consents for compounding the offence with the petitioner, we are of considered view that the offence for which the petitioner was convicted concurrently would stand compounded in terms of Section 147 of the NI Act and as a necessary sequel, the orders of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner would stand set aside. Ordered accordingly.
- Needless to state that in such eventuality, appropriate steps shall be taken soon to release the petitioner forthwith, in case his custody is not required in connection with any other offence.
- The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of, as above.
- Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
