Auction Purchaser Has No Vested Right Without Sale Confirmation: Calcutta HC Upholds Borrower’s Redemption Right Under Pre-Amendment SARFAESI Law Mere Breach of Promise to Marry Doesn’t Amount to Rape: Delhi High Court Acquits Man in False Rape Case Father Is the Natural Guardian After Mother’s Death, Mere Technicalities Cannot Override Welfare of Child: Orissa High Court Restores Custody to Biological Father Assets of Wife and Father-in-Law Can Be Considered in Disproportionate Assets Case Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court Refuses Discharge Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Justice Cannot Be Left to Guesswork: Supreme Court Mandates Structured Judgments in Criminal Trials Across India Truth Must Be Proven Beyond Doubt—Not Built On Flawed FIRs, Tainted Witnesses And Investigative Gaps: Supreme Court Acquits Man in POCSO Rape-Murder Case Once parties agree and reconciliation is impossible, a fault-based decree is unnecessary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Divorce on Desertion No Escape from Statutory Ceiling: Exclusive Expenditure by Foreign Head Offices Also Attracts Section 44C Income Tax: Supreme Court Loss Of A Child Cannot Be Calculated In Rupees, But Law Must At Least Offer Dignity In Compensation: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation Sessions Court Cannot Direct Life Imprisonment Till Natural Life Without Remission: Supreme Court Reasserts Limits on Sentencing Powers of Subordinate Courts ‘Continuously Means Without a Single Break’: Supreme Court Bars Expired-and-Renewed Licences From Police Driver Recruitment Chief Justice’s Power Under Section 51(3) Is Independent and Continuing: Supreme Court Upholds Kolhapur Bench Notification Last Seen Evidence Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case No Cultivation on Forest Land Without Central Clearance: Supreme Court Cancels Lease Over 134 Acres, Orders Reforestation Appointment from Rank List Must Respect Communal Rotation: SC Declines Claim of SC Waitlisted Candidate After Resignation of Appointee Supreme Court Dissolves 20-Year Estranged Marriage Under Article 142 Despite Wife’s Objection Murder Inside Temple Cannot Be Treated Lightly: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Father-Son Convicts in Group Killing Case

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