Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2017) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15232
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s).7904 of 2017)
Decided on: 17.11.2017
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv., Ms. Sumi P.S., Adv. and Mr. F. I. Choudhury, AOR
For Respondent(s):
Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Adv., Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR and Mr. Karma Dorjee, Adv.
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, 143 -- Cheque bounce case – Sentence for simple imprisonment of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.11,50,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months -- Parties amicably settled their dispute -- Parties to abide by the terms and conditions as contained in the Memorandum of Settlement without fail -- Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside and sentence imposed upon the appellant quashed.
(Para 2-6)
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against an order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No.1925 of 2016 whereby the revision petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and upheld the order passed by the trial Court convicting the appellant for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.11,50,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months. The High Court granted liberty to the opposite party / complainant (respondent No. 1) to withdraw the sum of Rs. 4 lacs, if deposited by the appellant.
3. The factual background of the case in a nutshell is that a sale agreement dated 12.9.2011 in respect of a shop in a commercial building, was entered into between the appellant (seller) and respondent No. 1 (purchaser) for a consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. Afterwards, as the respondent No. 1 wanted to cancel the deal and sought refund of his money, the appellant had issued a Cheque bearing No. 002774 for an amount of Rs.8,53,531.51 in favour of Respondent No. 1 (complainant) which was dishonoured at the bank with the endorsement “fund insufficient”, which led to the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.
4. When the matter was listed before us on 30-10-2017, learned counsel for the parties unanimously submitted that they are going to settle the matter out of Court by mutual negotiations and consent. Today, it is jointly submitted that the parties have decided to settle the dispute mutually in such way that the appellant shall pay an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the respondent No. 1 by a demand draft drawn on any bank in Kalimpong within a period of sixty days from the date of execution of Memorandum of Settlement. Learned counsel have also placed before this Court, the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.11.2017 duly signed by both the parties. Para 7 thereof reads thus:
“That the parties have entered into this agreement for the payment of the aforesaid amount which has arisen out of C.R. Case No.23/2013 and this agreement shall be filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.7904/2017 - “Ashis Subba Vs. Manoj Kumar Agarwal & Anr.” with a joint prayer for disposal of the said proceedings in terms thereof.”
5. Let the Memorandum of Settlement dated 11.11.2017 be taken on record and it shall form part of this order. We direct the parties to abide by the terms and conditions as contained in the Memorandum of Settlement without fail.
6. Since the parties have amicably settled their dispute, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and quash the sentence imposed upon the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the afore-stated terms.
Order accordingly.
********