M/S. Tricorn Fruit Products Ltd ... vs M/S. Progressive Nirman Pvt. Ltd, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5637 Tel

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2053 OF 2020

ORDER:

1. The petitioners/A1 & A2 are questioning the correctness of

orders made in the Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2019, dt.03.02.2020, on the

file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The

learned Sessions Judge confirmed the orders of the learned XII

Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, dt.15.05.2019 in

Crl.MP.No.1446 of 2019 in C.C.No.230/2018, whereby the

Learned Magistrate refused the cheque amount of Rs.17,21,250/-

and Rs.50,000/- towards costs of compensation, which were filed

by the accused at the stage of arguments along with petition

under Section 258 of Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for petitioners/A1 & A2 submits that the

learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge erred in not

considering the application made by the accused wherein they

have furnished DDs for the cheque amount and also an additional

amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. Learned Magistrate

ought to have directed the accused to accept the said cheques and

stop proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and consequently

should have recorded acquittal.

3. On the other hand learned counsel for 1st

respondent/complainant submits that the orders of the learned

Magistrate and consequential confirmation of the said orders by

the learned Sessions Judge are in accordance with law laid down

by the Honourable Supreme Court, as such, needs no

interference.

4. He further argued that the case was prosecuted in the year

2014 and at the stage of final arguments the said DDs were filed

before the concerned Court and the learned Magistrate was right

in holding that there is no consent of the complainant for which

reason the petition filed under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was

dismissed. The said finding of the learned Magistrate is on the

basis of the Judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme

Court in JIK Industries Limited and others v.Amarlal

V.Jumani and another1.

5. Section 258 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows;

"258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.--In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such

AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1079

stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge."

6. As per Section 258 Cr.P.C, in appropriate cases, the

Magistrate has powers to stop the proceedings without

pronouncing any Judgment and if the said orders which are made

under Section 258 after evidence of witnesses, the Judgment of

acquittal has to be pronounced. If witnesses are not examined, the

accused has to be discharged.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners/A1 & A2 filed petition under

Section 258 of Cr.P.C. along with the cheque amount and

compensation of Rs.50,000/- placing reliance on the Judgment

rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s.Meters and

Instruments Private Limited and another v. Kanchan Mehta2.

However, the learned Magistrate relied upon the Judgment of

Honourable Supreme Court in JIK Industries Limited (cited

supra 1), to dismiss the petition of petitioners.

8. In JIK Industries Limited case, it was held that unless the

consent of the aggrieved person/Complainant is present, the

offence cannot be compounded.

AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4594.

9. In view of the heavy pendency of cases filed under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, throughout the country,

several steps are taken and directions given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court to reduce pendency.

10. The Honourable Supreme Court in case of M/s.Meters and

Instruments Private Limited (cited supra 2) held that in regard

to the magnitude of the cases pending under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, certain directions would expedite the

proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

At para-18(iii), the Honourable Supreme Court directed as follows;

"18(iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused."

11. The Judgment in M/s.Meters and Instruments Private

Limited (cited supra 2) is subsequent to the Judgment in JIK

Industries Limited. Discretion is given to the concerned Court to

close the proceedings and discharge accused in the event of being

satisfied that the complainant in the case has been duly

compensated. The said exercise can be undertaken during the

course of trial in the Court below.

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the accused can

make an application for compounding at first or second hearing in

which case the Court ought to allow the same. However, while

dealing with prayer of closing the proceedings after

commencement of trial, discretion is left open to the Court to close

the proceedings.

13. In the present case, the petitioners have committed an error

in deciding the compensation and paying an amount of

Rs.50,000/- in addition to the cheque amount. In terms of the

direction of the Honourable Supreme court in M/s.Meters and

Instruments Private Limited, the petitioners/accused ought to

have made an application seeking indulgence of the trial court in

closing the proceedings and requesting the Court to arrive at a

reasonable compensation and thereafter pay such compensation

as decided by the trial Court pursuant to which the proceedings

would be closed, in the absence of the consent of one of the

parties.

14. In the said circumstances, the order of the learned II

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in

Crl.R.P.No.89 of 2019, dt.03.02.2020, is set aside and

consequently the orders of the learned XII Special Magistrate,

Erramanzil, Hyderabad, dt.15.05.2019 in Crl.MP.No.1446 of 2019

in C.C.No.230/2018, were also set aside.

15. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the prayer of

the accused while deciding the quantum of compensation by the

Court. Needless to say the discretion is left to the learned

Magistrate to (i) decide the quantum of compensation to close the

proceedings or (ii) conclude the proceedings as per procedure by

delivering Judgment on the basis of evidence.

16. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed

off.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.

___________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.: 04.11.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2053 OF 2020

Dt.04.11.2022

tk