Delhi High Court
Ram Avtar vs State & Anr. on 19 December, 2014
Author: V.P.Vaish
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19th December, 2014
+ CRL.M.C. 2753/2013
RAM AVTAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.S. Oberoi, Advocate.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP for the
State.
Mr. Akash Deep, Authorised
Representative.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of complaint case bearing CC
No.3075/12 titled as "Shree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh.
Ram Avtar" as well as the proceedings arising out of the same.
2. Succinctly stating the facts giving rise to present petition are that
respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as „NI Act‟) in respect of
dishonour of three cheques bearing Nos.687716, 687717 and 687718 all
dated 29.01.2011 for Rs.65,300/- (Rupees sixty five thousand three hundred)
each drawn on Bank of Baroda, New Delhi. Despite service of statutory
notice, the petitioner failed to make payment of the amounts of cheques.
After recording evidence of both the parties, vide judgment dated
10.10.2012 learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-02, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi convicted the accused under Section 138 of NI Act and vide
order on sentence dated 12.10.2012 the petitioner was sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment of six months and to compensate Rs.2,30,000/-
(Rupees Two lakhs thirty thousand) to respondent No.2 and in case of
default of payment, he was to undergo further imprisonment of one month.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order on sentence, the petitioner
filed Criminal Appeal No.120/2012. The said appeal was dismissed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.
Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement and a Settlement/
Compromise Deed was executed on 05.07.2013. The copy of the
Settlement/ Compromise Deed has been filed as Annexure-D to the petition.
On the basis of the said settlement, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
settled the matter with respondent No.2/ complainant and a Settlement/
Compromise Deed was executed on 05.07.2013. He further submits that the
petitioner has already paid the entire settled amount of Rs.2,20,000/-
(Rupees Two lakhs twenty thousand) by way of cheque. The respondent
No.2/ complainant does not want to pursue the complaint.
5. Mr. Akash Deep, Authorised Representative of respondent No.2/
complainant is present in Court today and confirms that the petitioner has
settled the matter with respondent No.2. Statement of Mr. Akash Deep,
Authorised Representative of respondent No.2 has been recorded separately
in this regard.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Akash Deep,
Authorised Representative of complainant and also perused the material on
record.
7. At this juncture, it is relevant to re-produce Section 147 of NI Act,
which reads as under: -
"Section 147 - Offences to be compoundable.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under
this Act shall be compoundable."
8. The Apex Court in „Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.‟,
(2010) 5 SCC 663, laid down following guidelines: -
"21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque
bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this
Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing
costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence.
It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs
will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present,
free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however
belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay
settling the cases for years. An application for compounding
made after several years not only results in the system being
burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective
justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following
guidelines be followed:
THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the writ of
summons be suitably modified making it clear to the
accused that he could make an application for compounding
of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and
that if such an application is made, compounding may be
allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the
accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for
compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for
compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent
stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition
that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque
amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with
the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court
deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is
made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision
or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the
condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount
by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is
made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase
to 20% of the cheque amount."
9. Since, the present petition has been filed on the basis of settlement, it
is not necessary to delve into the facts of the case. It would be suffice to say
that the dispute has arisen out of dishonour of three cheques issued by the
petitioner and thereafter the parties went through the litigation and the
parties have settled the matter and compounded the offence in terms of
Section 147 of NI Act. Respondent No.2/ complainant has not opposed the
said plea.
10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment dated 10.10.2012 and
order on sentence dated 12.10.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan
Magistrate (NI Act)-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in complaint case
bearing CC No.3075/2012 titled as „Shree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Sh. Ram Avtar‟ and order dated 31.05.2013 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Criminal
Appeal No.120/2012, on the basis of settlement arrived at between the
parties, subject to condition that the petitioner shall deposit 15% of the
cheque amounts by way of cost in Delhi High Court Legal Services
Committee within a period of four weeks.
11. The proof of cost shall be placed on record.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 19, 2014
hs
