CRL. REV. P/1/2017 of Santosh Kumar Gurung Vs District Collector and Ano. on 22 June 2017

(1) Heard on I.A. No.1 of 2017 which is an Application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2) It is the joint submission of learned Counsel for the Revisionist and the Respondent No.2 that the matter has been compounded between them, towards which a Deed of Compromise dated 20.6.2017, has also been drawn up. Both learned Counsel pray that the matter be disposed of as compounded.

(3) Learned Counsel for the State-Respondent submits that in view of the composition of the offence, he has no objection.

(4) Before this Court, it is submitted by the Revisionist in person that he was under no duress from any quarter to compromise the matter and he has done so of his own free will, as the Respondent No.2 had settled all dues, therefore nothing remained for adjudication between them.

(5) After considering the submissions put forth by learned Counsel, it may also be pointed out that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be compoundable in nature notwithstanding, anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The fact that the Section commences with a non-obstante clause clarifies that the Section prevails over Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(6) In O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana : (2000) 1 SCC 762, there was a prayer for compromising the offence during final hearing before the Supreme Court. Prior to that the conviction had been upheld by three Fora. The Supreme Court permitted the parties to compound the offence.

(7) In Rajendran vs. N. Mohanan and Another : (2009) 14 SCC 399, the parties entered into a compromise during pendency of the Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court having regard to the settlement made by learned Counsel for both parties was of the view that, there was no reason not to accept the compromise entered into between the parties. That, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was compoundable and the prayer made on behalf of the contesting parties was allowed and the Appeal disposed of on the basis of the said settlement. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Courts below were set aside and the Appellant acquitted of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(8) In view of the aforestated ratio of the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the nature of offence, the fact that the Revisionist and the Respondent No.2 have already entered into a compromise, I deem it appropriate to grant the permission to compound. The Deed of Compromise is accepted and placed on record.

Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes / No

bp

(9) Consequently, the Order of Conviction and Sentence recorded by the Courts below are set aside and the Petitioner/Revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against him.

(10) Crl. Rev. P. No. 01 of 2017 stands disposed of as compromised, as also the I.A.

Judge

22.06.2017