CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

High Court Recognizes 'Finest Hour of Justice' in Quashing Conviction after Compromise in Cheque Bounce Case

01 March 2025 2:27 PM

By: sayum


High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashes conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act following amicable settlement between parties. In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed the conviction and sentence of Hari Om Sharma under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following a settlement between the parties. The court, presided by Justice Anoop Chitkara, highlighted the jurisprudence behind the Negotiable Instruments Act and the significance of amicable resolutions in economic offenses.

Hari Om Sharma was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment along with a compensation of Rs. 5,50,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, District Kurukshetra. Subsequently, Sharma sought revision of the judgment in the High Court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, citing a compromise with the complainant, Raj Kumar.

The High Court noted that the essence of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to ensure that business transactions are honored and not necessarily to incarcerate individuals for bounced cheques. The court referred to several precedents where convictions were set aside based on compromise between parties, emphasizing the legislative intention behind the Act.

Justice Anoop Chitkara cited various Supreme Court judgments that upheld the validity of compromises in similar cases, including Ram Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ramji Lal v. State of Haryana. These precedents demonstrated the judiciary’s support for settlements in fostering harmony and resolving disputes amicably.

The court emphasized that the proceedings under Section 138 of the NIA are primarily to recover the cheque amount and not solely to penalize the defaulters. The judgment stated, "The continuation of these proceedings will not serve any fruitful purpose whatsoever," highlighting the judicial preference for compromise in economic offenses.

Justice Chitkara remarked, "The finest hour of Justice arises propitiously when parties, who fell apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion," quoting the Supreme Court's observation in Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney.

The High Court’s decision to quash the conviction underscores the judiciary's inclination towards encouraging settlements in economic disputes. This judgment is expected to reinforce the legal framework favoring compromises, thus promoting a more conciliatory approach in handling cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Date of Decision: May 29, 2024

 

 

Latest Legal News