NARVEER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. BHIKHAM RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'NIA Act'), filed by the respondent was adjudicated by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi. Vide judgment dtd. 30/5/2019 passed in the said complaint, bearing No.87/2015, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act ibid. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.5000.00. In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for three days. The petitioner/convict was also ordered to pay compensation to the respondent/complainant in the sum of Rs.1,91,000.00. In default of payment of compensation, he was sentenced to undergo additional simple imprisonment for fifteen days. This judgment was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, Camp at Karsog on 3/1/2022. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by the accused.

(2.) During hearing of the case today, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention to an application, bearing Cr.MP No.991 of 2022, moved under Sec. 147 of the NIA Act read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compounding of the offence in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. A compromise deed 4/4/2022 executed between the petitioner and respondent has also been enclosed alongwith the application. In terms of the said compromise, the parties have amicably settled the matter. The present petitioner has agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000.00 to the present respondent, out of which an amount of Rs.57,300.00 is stated to be already deposited by the petitioner in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karsog, District Mandi. The compromise deed reflects the fact that the balance amount of Rs.1,03,000.00 has already been received by the respondent/complainant, i.e. Rs.53,000.00 on 4/4/2022 and Rs.50,000.00 on 21/4/2022. The compromise deed also records that the petitioner will have no objection for the respondent's withdrawing the amount of Rs.57,300.00 deposited by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court. Both the parties have attended the hearing of the case today in person. They have affirmed the compromise vide their separate statements recorded today. The respondent/complainant is satisfied with the amount deposited by the petitioner and is not interested now to pursue the matter any further. He has no objection for compounding of the offence.

(3.) Sec. 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for compounding of the offence under the Act even at the appellate stage. Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhangu Trading Co. and another vs. Surjit Singh (dead) through LRs, 2019 (3) Crimes (SC) 76 and in N.P. Murugesan vs. C. Krishnamurthy, 2018 (9) SCALE 43, has held that when the entire compensation has been paid to the respondent/complainant and the parties have settled their dispute, then the whole litigation should be given a quietus, subject to appropriate terms. In 2010 (5) SCC 663, titled Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. and in 2014 (10) SCC 690, titled Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that while compounding the offence, the amount of compounding cost can be reduced in view of facts and circumstances of a case by recording reasons.