On December 15, 2022, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, observed that the High Court was not precluded from compounding the case in absence of the complainant’s consent where he was duly compensated as the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act did not provide that it was mandatory for the court to sentence the accused for imprisonment in all eventualities.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in the Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2019 titled as ‘Rajinder Kumar versus Pushpa Devi’, whereby the judgment dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, in Criminal Case No. 192 of 2017, titled as ‘Pushpa Devi versus Rajinder Kumar’ was affirmed, wherein the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of four months and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the respondent/complainant as compensation.
The petitioner against the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000 deposited Rs. 15,000/- in the trial Court and Rs. 40,000/- in the Registry of the Court, and he deposited Rs. 55,000/- against the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner expressed his willingness for compounding the case by making an additional payment of 10% of the awarded compensation. To show his bonafide he was permitted to deposit Rs. 5,000/- in the Registry of the Court in addition to the compensation amount. However, the respondent refused her consent for compounding the case hence, giving rise to the present petition.Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the judgment of SC in the case, Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta submitted that, in a case of the Negotiable Instrument Act, even in an absence of the consent of the complainant, the Court, in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant was compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.
The counsel further submitted that the petitioner was 52% permanently physically disabled persons and was suffering from some financial problems therefore, he could not arrange money for payment to the complainant, but immediately on arrangement of such money, he offered to pay 10% more than the compensation amount to the complainant for resolving the dispute amicably to compound the.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for respondent, while referring to the judgment in the case, JIK Industries Limited and others versus Amar Lal V. Jumani and another, submitted that, according to the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, offences under the same were made compoundable but the main principle of such compounding, namely, the consent of the person aggrieved or the person injured or the complainant could not be washed away nor could be substituted by the virtue of Section 147 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
The counsel also referred an order dated 16.04.2021 passed by a five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in a Suo-moto writ petition (CRL) No. (2) of 2020 in Re: - Expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, wherein it was observed that the judgment in Meters and Instruments, conferring a power on the trial Court to discharge an accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was not a good law.Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that section 258 Cr.P.C. was not applicable in the summon cases instituted on a complaint, moreover, the observations in this regard were related to the power of the Trial Magistrate but not with respect to the inherent powers of the High Court.
The court further observed that after viewing the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act coupled with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice, High Court was not precluded from compounding the case in absence of the consent of the complainant where the complainant was duly compensated as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act did not provide that it was mandatory for the Court to sentence an accused for imprisonment in all eventualities but there was an option for the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. Hence, the observations in Suo-moto Civil Writ Petition No. 2 of 2020 did not inhibit an inherent power of the High Court conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The hon’ble court was of the opinion that the complainant was compensated adequately and therefore, a substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him was not necessary.
The Decision of the Court:
The complaint filed by the respondent was compounded, hence the impugned orders/judgments were set-aside and the petitioner was acquitted of the offence charged. Moreover, the trial court was directed to release the amount of Rs.15,000/- deposited by the petitioner to the respondent.
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Vs. Pushpa Devi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Case No.- Criminal Revision No.293 of 2021
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra
Advocate for Respondent: Ms. Maan Singh
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments