Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2024) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18923 = 2024(2) 244
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.12415 of 2023)
Decided on: 05.02.2024
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. P.R.Kovilan Poongkuntran, Adv., Mr. V Vasudevan, Adv., Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, AOR, Ms. Jubli Momalia, Adv., Mrs. K Priya, Adv.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. A. Selvin Raja, AOR
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Quashing of conviction in cheque bounce complaint – Compounding of offence – Non-consent of complainant – Cheque amounting Rs.1,50,000/-, appellant deposited Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited with the Trial Court as suggested by Court -- Respondent/ complainant ought to have come forward to compound the offence – Held, Court not appreciated the stand taken by the respondent, especially when the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- more than what was ordered to be paid by the Trial Court -- Conviction of the appellant quashed and set aside.
(Para 3-7)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The respondent is the complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the NI Act"). The cheque amount was of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand). The Trial Court found the appellant to be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand). The appellant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal. The High Court by the impugned judgment has also dismissed the Revision Application preferred by the appellant.
4. In terms of the orders passed by this Court, firstly, the appellant has deposited a total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) with the Trial Court on 6th December, 2023 which represents the cheque amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand) and interest thereon @ 6% p.a. from 2nd August, 2013. Secondly, as suggested by this Court, the appellant has deposited a further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with the Trial Court on 2nd February, 2024. Thus, against the fine amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand), the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand). In fact, this is a case where the respondent ought to have come forward to compound the offence, inasmuch as he has not challenged the order of the learned Magistrate by which the fine/compensation was confined to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand).
5. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that he has spent much more amount than Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) on the litigation. Therefore, he is not consenting for compounding.
6. We do not appreciate the stand taken by the respondent, especially when the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) more than what was ordered to be paid by the Trial Court.
7. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we quash and set aside the conviction of the appellant by setting aside the impugned orders.
8. We permit the respondent to withdraw a total amount of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) deposited by the appellant with the Trial Court.
9. The appeal is accordingly allowed on the above terms.
Appeal allowed.
********