TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 972X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing such powers. It was also held in the matter of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., [ 2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT ] and Kaushalya Devi Massand Vs. Roopkishore, [ 2011 (3) TMI 1491 - SUPREME COURT ], to the effect that compromise in question would definitely go a long way to strengthen the mutual relationship between the parties and would serve as an ever lasting tool in their favour. Such an exercise would be in consonance with the spirit of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the parties having settled the matter and the amount having been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent-Bank and in the light of consent of the parties, it appropriate to invoke the power vested by virtue of Section 147 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner had submitted before the Court that the entire outstanding amount, as was due to the respondent-Bank, stands remitted and as of now, nothing is outstanding against the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the entire amount of the cheque has been paid to the the respondent-Bank, therefore, the case in hand be permitted to be compounded as per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The relevant provisions of the Act reads thus:- 147 Offences to be compoundable. -Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 3. Today Mr. Naman Jain, Advocate has appeared on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under the Act would be compoundable. 6. Mr. Rohtagi urged that in view of the non-obstante clause, the provisions of Section 147 were given an overriding effect over the Code and in view of the clear mandate given to the parties to compound an offence under the Act, reference to Section 320 Cr.P.C. can be made for purposes of comparison only in order to understand the scope of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the said position had been accepted by this Court in various decisions, such as in the case of O.P. Dholakia vs. State of Haryana Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 762], wherein it was held that since the petitioner had already entere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue has been gone into in great detail. 9. The golden thread in all these decisions is that once a person is allowed to compound a case as provided for under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction under Section 138 of the said Act should also be set aside. In the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak (supra), the issue was raised and after taking note of the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., this Court held that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and payments had been made in full and final settlement of the dues of the Bank, the appeal deserved to be allowed and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. Consequently, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by all the courts were set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. The various decisions cited by Mr. Rohtagi on this issue does not add to the above position. 13. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the Appellate Forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution. 6. Reference can also be made to the judgment in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
