The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.2238 of 2025 Deepak Sahoo ..... Petitioner Sonali Swain -versus- ..... Represented By Adv. - Rajjeet Roy Opposite Party Represented By Adv. – Mr. Mohit Agarwal CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No. ORDER 24.06.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
observed that there is no dispute on the factual aspects in the present case. The judgment under Annexure-1 remains unassailed. However, in the meantime the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The question, therefore, before this Court is as to whether the matter shall be allowed to be compounded in terms of the provisions contained under Section 147 of the NI Act. In the aforesaid context, this court would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663. In the abovenoted reported judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was required adjudicate an issue as to whether a complaint case can be compounded under Section 147 of the NI Act and if so, at what stage of the proceeding. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the NI Act as well as Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. laid down the guidelines in Para-21 of the judgment. For better appreciation Para-18 & 21 of the judgment is quoted herein below-: 18.It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect. There is also some support for the apprehensions raised by the learned Attorney General that a majority of cheque bounce cases are indeed being compromised or settled by way of compounding, albeit during the later stages of litigation thereby contributing to undue delay in justice delivery. The problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute, furthermore, the written submissions Page 3 of 6. filed on behalf of the learned Attorney General have stressed on the fact that unlike Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court. 21.The Guidelines:- (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (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. is made before (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding 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. (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. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount. 8. On a careful analysis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu’s case (supra) this Court is of the view that it is a settled position of law that despite the provisions contained Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., the cases registered under the provisions Page 4 of 6. of the NI Act, 1881 can be very well be compounded in terms of the provisions contained on the Section 147 thereon. The rigors of Section 320 and the procedural formalities as provided under the said Section could not be applicable to the cases registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Further, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that section 147of the NI Act in the nature of an enabling provision which provides for compounding of offences prescribed under the said special statute and that such provision is an exception to the general rule incorporated in sub- section 9 of section 320 Cr.P.C. It has also been held that the provisions contained in 147 of the NI Act, which was incorporated by way of an amendment to a Special Law, will override the effect of section 320(9) of Cr.P.C. 9. Reverting back to the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the abovenoted case, this Court observes that in the clause(c) of the guidelines, compounding is permissible in appeal/revision preferred before the Sessions Court/High Court subject to the condition mentioned therein. 10. Keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 147 of the NI Act, taking into consideration the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S Prabhu (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the dispute of the present nature can very well be compounded, otherwise the same would cause prejudice to the parties as they would be relegated to either the trial court or to the lower Appellate Court and as such they would be unnecessarily compelled to face the rigors of the procedural law and there is every likely that the dispute may be prolonged further. Keeping in view the legislative intention behind enacting a special statute like the Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in view of the Page 5 of 6. aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that the complaint can be compounded by this Court in exercise of his inherent power said under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal position, further keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case (supra) and further taking into consideration the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and that the complainant-Opposite Party No.1 has received the entire amount and he does not have any subsisting grievance against the petitioner, this Court with a view to bring an end to the dispute, deems it proper to compound the present offence under Section 147 of the NI Act. Accordingly, the prayer for compounding is allowed. As a result, the 1 C.C. case No. 32 of 2023, corresponding to Trial No.43 of 2025 is hereby compounded. Consequentially the judgment of the learned trial court dated 03.06.2025 passed in 1.C.C. case No.32 of 2023 is hereby quashed. 12. Further, in terms of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the aforesaid Compounding is subject to payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner. The aforesaid amount of Rs.10,000/- be deposited before the Odisha State Legal Services Authorities within two weeks from today. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC
Arguments
Heard Mr. R.Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Mohit Agarwal, learned counsel for the sole private-Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present application under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 the petitioner has prayed for compounding of the offences alleged against the petitioner i.e. under Section 138 of the NI Act in terms of Section 147 of the NI Act and for setting aside and quashing the judgment dated 03.06.2025 passed by the learned J.M.F.C.-III (Cog. Taking), Cuttack in 1.C.C. Case No.32 of 2023 which corresponds to Trial No.43 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that the complaint case was initially registered at the instance of the Page 1 of 6. Opposite Party No.1for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. He further contended that the petitioner faced trial before the learned trial court and, vide his judgment dated 03.06.2025 under Annexure-1, the Petitioner was found to be guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and accordingly the trial ended with the conviction of the petitioner under the aforesaid section. While imposing sentence, the learned trial court has been imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of twelve months and to pay a sum of Rs.8,45,301/- inclusive of the interest towards the cheque amount and in default thereof the petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four months. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture contended that after the judgment was delivered by the learned trial court the parties have amicably resolved the dispute and that the petitioner has already paid the cheque amount to the sole opposite party as directed by the learned trial court. He further contended that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal, therefore he has approached this Court by filing the present application seeking compounding of the offence in terms of Section 147 of the NI Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the sole Opposite Party on the other hand supported the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He further argued that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and the petitioner has paid the entire amount to the sole Opposite Party in the meantime. He further submitted that the Opposite Party-Complainant does not want to proceed further against the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that he will have no objection in the event this Court compounded the offence in terms of Page 2 of 6. Section 147 of the NI Act. 7. Heard learned counsels appearing for both sides. Perused the judgement dated 03.06.2025 under Annexure-1, on a careful analysis of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, it is
Decision
application is disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 25-Jun-2025 17:56:36 Page 6 of 6.