Owing To The Settlement Between Parties, An Order Of Conviction Even After The Revisional Stage Can Be Nullified By The High Court: Allahabad HC

FACTS OF THE CASE

• A petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC.
• It prayed to compound the offence committed under Section 138 and to quash the one-year sentence which was awarded to the petitioner.
• During the course of business relationship between the petitioner and opposite party no.2, the petitioner had issued two cheques each of Rs.1,00,000/- in favor of opposite party no.2 which had bounced due to insufficient funds.
• A complaint case was filed eventually, in which the Court convicted the petitioner and sentence him to 1 year of simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-
• At the time of hearing, the petitioner had deposited 1,00,000/- and had preferred a Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad.
• In December 2020, the appeal got dismissed against which the petitioner had filed for a Criminal Revision before the High Court.
• This appeal got rejected at the admission stage.
• Subsequently, on January 22, 2021 the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 amicably entered into the agreement, through his father, as per the record.
• Thus, the accused-petitioner had moved the High Court under Section 482 for compounding the offence and to quash the prison sentence.

SUBMISSIONS MADE

• Advocates Naved Ali and Sandeep Yadav, representing the petitioner, argued that Section 482 CrPC was maintainable after the dismissal of the revision on merit. They submitted the judgement of Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh.
• Further, they put forth that as the object of NI Act was to compensate and not punitive, Section 147 of NI Act would have an overriding effect on Section 320 Cr.P.C, irrespective of the stage at which the parties were getting into the compromise.
• They also placed their reliance on the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, where the Apex Court had formulated the guidelines for compounding the offence under Section 138.
• AGA Alok Saran, representing the party no 2, submitted that the petition cannot be maintained as the Court had already convicted and it was upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court in the revision.

FINDINGS OF COURT

• Justice Chandra Dhari Singh noted that inherent powers provided under Section 482 can only be exercised when no other remedy was available for the litigant by the statute.
• The Court disagreed with the notion that after the revisional level of a criminal offence, a compromise without permission of the Court can be compounded only if High Court or Court of Sessions grants such permission.
• The Court upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court but as this Court has the power to intervene in exercise of the powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. only with a view to do the substantial justice or to avoid miscarriage and the spirit of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
• Justice Singh further observed that, with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy must be given priority over the punitive aspect.
• Thus, the conviction and sentence stood annulled.
• The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.5000/- to the respondent – State and the release of the amount of Rupees one lakh so deposited by the petitioner.

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ABOUT IT?