Smt. Pallabi Choudhury Das vs Brajen Kalita And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4214 Gua

                                                                             Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010052282019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./105/2019

             SMT. PALLABI CHOUDHURY DAS
             W/O LT. ANANTA DAS, R/O SENMELA, BETKUCHI, P.O.-SAWKUCHI,
             MOUZA-BELTOLA, P.S.-GORCHUK, GUWAHATI-781034, DIST-KAMRUP (M),
             ASSAM



             VERSUS

             BRAJEN KALITA AND ANR.
             S/O LT. SUREN KALITA, R/O BEHARBARI, BORSAJAI, KALIMANDIR PATH,
             GUWAHATI-781029, P.S.-BASISTHA, DIST-KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

             2:THE STATE OF ASSAM
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : DR. K U AHMED

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM (R2)




                                         BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
                                          ORDER

02.11.2022 This revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal 194/2017, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for setting aside Page No.# 2/4

and quashing or altering/ modifying the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2017, passed in

CR Case No. 904c/2015, was rejected.

The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act against the present revision petitioner, which was allowed in favour of the complainant/opposite party No. 1, whereby the petitioner accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 6 (six) months and further to pay compensation of Rs. 10 lacs, under Section 357 CrPC, to the complainant by Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2017.

By challenging the said Judgment and Order, the present petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No. 194/2017, before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati and the appeal was dismissed vide Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2018, upholding the Judgment of the trial Court. Hence, this revision for modifying the impugned judgment and order 21.12.2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the entire amount of compensation has been paid by the present petitioner to the complainant/opposite party No. 1 and in support of the fact, he had sworn an affidavit, along with a compromise deed executed between the parties and he has prayed to reduce the sentence, passed against the petitioner by the trial Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following case-laws

1. (2010) 1 SCC 602; (Basavaraj -Vs- Dhanlaxmi Finance Company (R), Terdal)

2. Crl. Rev. No. 334 of 2022 (Himachal Pradesh High Court); (Kantu Ram -Vs- Beer Singh)

3. GHC Criminal Revision Petition No. 194/2018; (Thago Bala Kakoti -Vs- Uma Kanta Das) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that the petitioner has paid the entire compensation amount to the respondent/complainant, as per order of the trial Court. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/4

respondent/complainant that if this Court remits the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the learned trial Court against the petitioner, the respondent/complainant would not raise any objection.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 says the offences to be compoundable- notwithstanding anything contained in the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.

I have also gone through the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as deed of compromise executed between the parties, wherein both the parties have agreed with the fact that the petitioner shall pay the entire amount of compensation, i.e., Rs. 10 lacs to the respondent/complainant, as per order of the learned trial Court and accordingly, money receipt will be executed as a mark of acknowledgement of the amount.

It is also specifically mentioned in the compromise deed that if this Court remits the sentence of imprisonment as ordered by the trial Court against the petitioner, the respondent/ complainant, would not raise any objection. One money receipt is also available along with the compromise deed, wherein the respondent/complainant acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 10 lacs from the present petitioner, in connection with CR Case No.

904c/2015.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that as the entire amount of compensation has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent/complainant and which was acknowledged by the complainant by executing a money receipt, this Court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer of the petitioner for compounding the offence, under Section 147 of the NI Act and in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu -Vs- Sayed Baba Lal H.; reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the NI At, can proceed to compound the offence, even after recording of conviction by the Court below.

Under such backdrop, prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The offence committed by Page No.# 4/4

him under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below are set aside.

The criminal revision petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant