Case title: Alpesh Narendra Shah and Another vs. Manoj Agarwal
Case no: Crl.Rev.P. No.02 of 2019
Order on: May 4, 2023
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Fact of the case:
The respondent, Manoj Agarwal, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) against the petitioners, Alpesh Narendra Shah and Another. The complaint alleged that the petitioners had issued a cheque of ₹20,00,000 from Jankalyan Sahakari Bank Ltd., which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the petitioners and sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,00,000 each, with a default clause of further imprisonment. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, leading to the filing of a criminal revision petition.
Legal provisions:
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Deals with the dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds.
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Provides for the compounding of offences under the Act, allowing for the withdrawal of the complaint by the payee.
Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Deals with no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section, unless specifically permitted by other laws.
Contentions of Appellant:
The petitioners, represented by their counsel, submitted an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking permission to compound the offence. They argued that compounding of the offence is permissible at any stage of the proceedings, as provided under Section 147 of the NI Act. The petitioners emphasized that the parties had reached a compromise, as evidenced by the Deed of Compromise submitted before the court.
They argued on relevant legal precedents, including M. Rangaswamaiah vs. R. Shettappa, to support their contention that compounding of offences under the NI Act is allowed even during the appellate stage.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent, represented by counsel, agreed with the petitioners’ submission regarding the permissibility of compounding the offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. They acknowledged the compromise reached between the parties and did not oppose the application for compounding. The respondent’s counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. to support the proposition that compounding of the offence is permissible at any stage of the proceedings.
Court analysis:
The court determined the provisions of Section 147 of the NI Act, which allow for the compounding of offences under the Act. Referring to relevant Supreme Court judgments, including Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., the court affirmed that compounding of the offence can indeed be permitted at any stage of the proceedings. Considering the compromise reached between the parties and the absence of any opposition from the respondent, the court accepted the Deed of Compromise submitted before it. The court concluded that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act could be compounded, and therefore, the petitioners were acquitted of the offence. Moreover, the court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the amount deposited as per an earlier court order. The court disposed of the criminal revision petition
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
