Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Conviction in Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Case Following Amicable Settlement

31 August 2024 12:34 PM

By: sayum


High Court acknowledges full payment and mutual compromise, setting aside previous judgments and ordering release of deposited funds. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the conviction of Biyas Dev in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, following an amicable settlement between the parties. The court, presided over by Justice Sandeep Sharma, emphasized the importance of mutual resolution and exercised its powers under Section 147 of the Act to compound the offense.

The respondent, Shiv Chand, initiated a complaint against Biyas Dev, alleging that a cheque for ₹4,80,000 issued by Dev was dishonored due to insufficient funds. Despite being given legal notice, Dev failed to pay the amount, leading to a trial where the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu convicted him and sentenced him to three months of simple imprisonment, along with a compensation of ₹4,80,000. The Additional Sessions Judge later reduced this compensation to ₹3,00,000 while upholding the conviction. Dev then approached the High Court seeking acquittal.

During the High Court proceedings, it was revealed that both parties had reached a settlement. The complainant received ₹2,64,000 directly from Dev, with an additional ₹96,000 deposited in the trial court. The total settlement amount of ₹3,60,000 was agreed upon, which satisfied the complainant.

Justice Sandeep Sharma acknowledged the full payment and the voluntary nature of the settlement. Citing the Supreme Court's guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., the court highlighted its authority under Section 147 to compound the offense even after a conviction has been recorded. "The entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant, leaving no impediment in accepting the prayer for compounding the offense," stated Justice Sharma.

Justice Sharma remarked, "Having taken note of the fact that the entire amount of compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offense, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offense."

The Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision to quash the conviction underscores the judiciary's support for amicable settlements in financial disputes. By setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and ordering the release of deposited funds to the complainant, the court reinforced the significance of mutual resolution and compliance with judicial guidelines.

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024

Biyas Dev vs. Shiv Chand

Latest Legal News