Allowed

Kanvendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024A482/25584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to compound a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 N.I. Act despite prior conviction and dismissal of appeal. Compounding was sanctioned subject to the applicant depositing 15% of the cheque value as costs.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; offence compounded subject to deposit of 15% cheque value as costs to National Law University within 10 days.

Kanvendra Singh vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:180229

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25584 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kanvendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prashant Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Compromise affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 today in Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Prashant Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sunil Kumar Kushwaha, learned A.G.A for the State.

¶8

The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well as N.B.W. order dated 02.12.2023 and the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Mathura in Criminal Complaint Case No.39 of 2020 including the order dated 15.10.2022 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Mathura in Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the Cheque No.591174 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- issued by the applicant to opposite party no.2 was presented before bank, was dishnoured due to insufficient fund. Thereafter proceeding of complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was initiated by opposite party no.2 which was registered as Complaint Case No.1910758 of 2016 and the trial court after conclusion of trial convicted the applicant vide order dated 25.11.2019 by imposing a fine of Rs.1,50,000/- along with six month imprisonment. It was further directed that out of Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.1, 40,000/- shall be paid to complainant and remaining Rs,10,000 shall be deposited as penalty. Against the conviction order dated 25.11.2019 passed in Complaint case No.1910758 of 2016, an appeal was preferred by the appellant before the appellate court which was registered as Appeal No.111 of 2019. The appellate court vide order dated 15.10.2022 confirmed the conviction order dated 25.11.2019 and rejected the appeal of the appellant against which present

¶10

application has been preferred.

¶11

Now counsel for the applicant submitted that the parties have settled the dispute and a compromise affidavit dated 17.05.2024 was also filed before this Court in which it is mentioned that parties have settled the dispute and applicant has already paid Rs.1,45,000/- to opposite party no.2. Now with the consent of parties, impugned proceeding may be compounded. A copy of compromise is annexed as annexure 7 to the affidavit.

¶12

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has also filed a compromise affidavit in which he has accepted that parties have entered into compromise and in pursuance of the compromise the applicant has paid Rs.1,45,000/- as full and final settlement. He also admitted the written compromise dated 17.05.2024 as well as compromise affidavit annexed with the paper book as annexure-7 to this application and opposite party no.2 conveyed his consent for compounding the offence in question.

¶13

However, learned AGA submitted that though as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 compounding in the cases of N.I. Act is permissible under Section 147 N.I. Act at any stage but if the application of compounding is made before the High Court then accused shall pay Rs.15% of cheque amount by way of cost.

¶14

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that the applicant was convicted by order dated 25.11.2019 under Section 138 N.I. Act and there is fine of Rs.1,50,000/- along with imprisonment of six month and appeal filed by the applicant was also dismissed on 15.10.2022. Now both the parties have settled their dispute and present application has also been filed along with compromise and affidavit for compounding the present case and opposite party no.2 himself filed compromise affidavit before this Court giving his consent for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act.

¶15

The Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) observed in para 21 and 22 that compounding for the offence under N.I. Act can be allowed by the Court subject to payment of cost. It is clearly mentioned in para 21 of the aforesaid judgment that if the application is filed before he High Court or Sessions Court, then compounding can be allowed by the court with a cost @ of 15%. Para 21 and 22 of the aforesaid judgement is being quoted as under.

¶16

"21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:

¶17

THE GUIDELINES

¶18

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

¶19

(a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

¶20

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit.

¶21

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

¶22

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.

¶23

Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these Guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Session, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority."

¶24

The Apex Court again reiterated the observation made in Damodar S. Prabhu (surpa) in the case of Raj Reddy Kallem vs State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.2210 of 2024 observed that though there is no exact procedure for compounding the offence under N.I. Act but in appropriate cases Court can permit for compounding the offence in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act.

¶25

Considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute and clear consent has been given by the opposite party no.2 that he has received amount of Rs.1,45,000/- and the offence may be compounded as both the parties are ready for compounding the offence.

¶26

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and taking

¶27

into the observation made by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) as well as Raj Reddy Kallem (supra) , this Court allowed the compounding of offence under Section 138 N.I. Act arising out of Complaint Case No.39 of 2020 filed before the Additional Court, Mathura between the applicant and opposite party no.2 subject to condition that the applicant will deposit Rs.15% of the cheque amount before the Dr. Rajendra Prasad, National Law University, Prayagraj within 10 days.

¶28

Composition of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act by this order will deem to be acquittal of the applicant from the charges framed against him.

¶29

It is made clear, if the applicant fails to deposit the cost within 15 days from today, then the Registrar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj will inform to the District Magistrate, Mathura about non-deposit of cost and the District Magistrate, Mathura will recover the same from the applicant as arrears of land revenue and remit the same to Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj.

¶30

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of .

¶31

Registrar (Compliance) will send a copy of this order to the Registrar, Dr. Rajendra Prasad National Law University, Prayagraj.

¶32

Order Date :- 18.11.2024 A.Kr.

¶33

Digitally signed by :- AJAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanvendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanvendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harish Chandra vs State of Up Others

Abrar Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Laxmi Narayan Dinkar vs State of U.P. and ANOther

Aseem Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Ascent Development Private Limited vs State of U.P. and Another

Sharafat Ali vs State of U.P. and Another