Amardeep Sindhu vs Nitin Gupta And Another

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioner, who stands convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and

after that, the appeal under Section 374 CrPC also stands dismissed, has come up before this Court under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure,

for quashing the proceedings because the parties have compromised the matter.

Petitioner Shri Amardeep Sindhu, through his counsel, Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, has placed on record the original receipt of full and final payment.

The same is taken on record. Mr. Ashok Tyagi, learned counsel, appearing for the complainant, respondent No.1 herein, also submits, on instructions

received from Shri Nitin Gupta, respondent No.1 herein that the said receipt was issued by him and he had received the entire payment.

REASONING:

The jurisprudence behind the N.I. Act is that the business transactions are honored. The legislative intention is not to send the people to suffer

incarceration because their cheque was bounced. These proceedings are to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penalty loss.

Given the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, the law is well settled

that when the entire money is paid, then the complainant cannot have any objection to such compromise, and 15% of the cheque amount is to be paid

by the accused to the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.

This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further supported by Section 147 of the N.I. Act to interfere

in this kind of matter where parties have paid the entire money and where the complainant does not object to clear all the proceedings. Given the

entirety of the case and judicial precedents, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful

purpose whatsoever.

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that because of the compromise, this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is invoked to compound the offence and consequently to

quash the proceedings mentioned above.

In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at p 642, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice

arise propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

Consequently, given the compounding of offences, the proceedings are quashed. Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under

Section 138 of the Act.

The amount of cheque in question was Rs. 70,000/-, 15% of which comes out to be Rs. 10,500/-. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.

10,500/-, on or before 31st August, 2021, failing which this entire order, including compounding, shall automatically stand recalled, and this petition shall

be posted for hearing on merits. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the petitioner may approach this Court for an extension of time to deposit

the compounding fee. Petitioner to file the receipt in the Registry.

Based on the compromise, the petitioner makes out a case for closure of the proceedings and the same are ordered to be closed.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Copy Dasti.