Jagjit Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. Present petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 17.10.2015 in case bearing no. CC No.7234/2015 wherein the petitioner herein was convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act and order dated 27.11.2015 whereby he was awarded sentence of simple imprisonment of one year and the compensation of Rs.[4] lakhs. The conviction order was challenged before the learned Sessions Court in C.A.No.11/16 and vide judgment dated 03.05.2016 the appeal was dismissed. However, even after the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner did not surrender before the Court and case FIR No.338/16 under Section 174A at PS Kapashera was lodged. However, now the parties have reached on a settlement vide settlement deed dated 25.04.2023 on the following terms: We amicably settle the dispute as one Criminal Case CC N No. 7 234/2015 Sanjay Kumar Yadav V/S Jagjit Sharma U. / S 138 NI ACT Dwarka Court Delhi Wherein 27.NOV 2015 The Ld. Trial Court Pleased to allow the said complaint and punished the first party for 12 months of simple imprisonment and Rs. 4,00,000/- as a compensation and on default of the compensation amount the simple imprisonment 03 months extended. The first party preferred an appeal vide CA No. 11/ 16 titled Jagjit Sharma V /S Sanjay Kumar Yadav with the delay of 59 days same was dismissed by the appellant court so the first party filed a criminal revision before the Hon'ble Court same got dismissed. Hence, both the parties settled the said matter with total amount of 5,20,000 whereas Rs 4,00,000 is compensation amount and Rs. 1,20,000 is interest amount. The first party deposited Rs. 4,00,000/ - amount through RTGS TO Second party on 18.03.2023 and the remam1ng amount Rs.1,20,000/- has also been deposited on 27.04.2023. It is further settled that the first party will withdraw his case.

2. The complainant is present in court and has duly been identified by the IO. He submits that he has received a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- from the petitioner. The complainant states that he has settled the matter amicably without any fear, force or coercion and since the terms of settlement agreement have been complied with, he has no objection if the present petition is allowed.

3. In the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K.M.Imrahim vs. K.P.Mohammed & Anr., Crl.Appeal No.2281/2009 dated 02.12.2009, it was inter alia held as under:

8. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is allowed to compound a case as provided for under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and after taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., this Court held that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the Bank, the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charge leveled against him.

9. The object of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which would not in the strict sense of the term apply to a proceeding under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, gives the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to compound offences mentioned in the table contained in the said section, with or without the leave of the court, and also vests the court with jurisdiction to allow such compromise. By virtue of Sub-Section (8), the Legislature has taken one step further in vesting jurisdiction in the Court to also acquit the accused/convict of the offence on the same being allowed to be compounded. Inasmuch as, it is with a similar object in mind that Section 147 has been inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by amendment, an analogy may be drawn as to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in Section 320(8) Cr.P.C., although, the same has not been expressly mentioned in the amended section to a proceeding under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act.

10. Apart from the above, this Court is further empowered under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass appropriate orders in line with Sub-Section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. in an application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act, in order to do justice to the parties.

11. As far as the non-obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. The various decisions cited by Mr. Rohtagi on this issue does not add to the above position.

12. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellant is in custody since 15.03.2023 in case under Section 174A IPC.

5. As the parties have agreed to compound the offence, the conviction order dated 17.10.2015 and order on sentence dated 27.11.201 are set aside. However, since the petitioner did not surrender for a long time even despite the appeal having been dismissed and subsequent FIR was also lodged against him, a cost of Rs.25,000/- is imposed upon him to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month.

6. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J MAY 12, 2023/rb..