Allahabad High Court Compounds Offense in Cheque Bounce Case, Nullifies Conviction Following Compromise
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has compounded the offense in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, nullifying the conviction and sentence following a compromise between the parties. The decision, delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed, underscores the court’s commitment to ensuring justice and resolving disputes amicably, leveraging its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Court Observations and Views:
Compounding of Offenses:
The court emphasized that the primary objective of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compensatory rather than punitive. “The object of ‘N.I. Act’ is primarily compensatory and not punitive,” the judgment noted, highlighting the importance of facilitating settlements even at advanced stages of litigation.
Inherent Powers of the High Court:
Justice Shamim Ahmed invoked the court’s inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the ends of justice. The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions that support the compounding of offenses under Section 138 at any stage of the proceedings. “The powers available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not have been exercised when a statutory remedy under the law is available, however, considering the peculiar set of facts and circumstances, it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the parties to appellate court,” the judgment read.
Legal Reasoning:
The court acknowledged the unique nature of offenses under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are distinct from other criminal offenses due to their primarily financial nature. “Unlike other forms of crime, the punishment here is not a means of seeking retribution but more a means to ensure payment of money,” the judgment stated, citing precedents that favor resolving such disputes through financial compensation rather than incarceration.
Quotes from the Judgment:
Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked, “Considering the facts as narrated above, the following two questions arise for consideration – Whether an order passed by the High Court in the criminal revision petition confirming the conviction can be nullified by the High Court in a petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. noticing subsequent compromise of the case by the contesting parties.”
Conclusion:
The judgment marks a significant instance of the judiciary facilitating amicable resolutions in financial disputes, reinforcing the legal framework’s flexibility in addressing the specificities of each case. By setting aside the conviction and directing the release of the remaining deposited amount to the complainant, the court has demonstrated a pragmatic approach to justice, emphasizing the importance of compensatory remedies over punitive measures in cases involving financial instruments.
Date of Decision: 27-05-2024
Ravindra Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. LKO. and Another
