AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.B. Siddappa, J.—The matter arises u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused of the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to undergo S.1. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs, in default to suffer S.1. for three months. In the appeal, the same was confirmed.
The complainant and the accused are present and filed a compromise Memo, The complainant stated that the entire amount is paid by the accused and she and the accused have compromised in the matter and therefore they may be permitted to compound the offence.
In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana and Another, 2000 SCC (Crl.) 310. held as follows:-
Mr. Mahabir Singh, the Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Haryana Contends that the conviction and sentence having been upheld by all the three forums, this Court need not interfere with the same and it was open for the parties to enter into compromise at an earlier stage when the appeal was pending. Now this Court need not show any indulgence. There is some force in the aforesaid contention. But taking into consideration the nature of offence in question and the fact that the complainant and the accused have already entered into a compromise, we think it appropriate to grant permission, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, to compound. Necessarily the conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Act stands annulled. The SLP is disposed of accordingly.
In view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court and the fact that the parties in this case have also compromised and the complainant have received the amount. I permit the offence to be compounded. Hence, the offence is compounded. The conviction and the sentence passed u/s 138 of the Act stands annulled.