Read Order: Rani v. Jagraj Singh and another
Chandigarh, January 13, 2022: While dealing with a revision petition wherein a case under Section 138 of NI Act was settled by the parties during the pendency of the said revision petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that as per Section 320(6) of the Cr.P.C, the High Court or the Court of Sessions, as the case may be, even while exercising the powers of revision as envisaged under Section 401 of Cr.P.C can compound the offence.
The Bench of Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi was dealing with a case wherein the accused-petitioner was convicted by an order of Trial Court in relation to a complaint filed by the complainant against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Thereafter, he preferred an appeal against this order of conviction before the lower Appellate Court, however, the same was dismissed and hence the present revision petition was filed before the High Court impugning both the above mentioned orders, i.e. the order of conviction and the order of dismissal of appeal. However, during the pendency of the revision petition, the parties settled their dispute.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the amount that was required to be paid by the accused- petitioner to the legal heirs of the complainant (since deceased), was paid to him to his entire satisfaction and therefore, the allegation/charge should be compounded. Agreeing with this, the counsel for the complainant- first respondent submitted that his claim was already satisfied and he did not have any objections.
The High Court observed that in the instant case, it was undisputed by the first respondent-complainant that the offence, for which the petitioner was charged and convicted was compoundable.
“Once, the parties have amicably resolved their dispute and heirs of respondent No. 1/complainant has already stated before this Court that his claim has been satisfied to his entire satisfaction and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/complainant raises no objection to the prayer of the petitioner for compounding the offence, it is a fit case, where this Court needs to exercise the jurisdiction of compounding of offence”, said the Bench.
Setting aside the two impugned orders, the Court accepted the revision petition The accused- petitioner was ordered to be acquitted subject to the payment of a certain amount as cost.