Case Note & Summary
The applicant, C. Venkatachalapathy, was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C.No.4400371/SS/2012 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi Court, Mumbai along with an application for condonation of delay (Criminal Misc. Application No. 134 of 2017). The Sessions Court dismissed the condonation application on 5th March 2018, effectively rejecting the appeal. The applicant then approached the Bombay High Court challenging that order. During the pendency of the application, the applicant and respondent No.1 (the original complainant) arrived at an amicable settlement. Respondent No.1 filed an affidavit confirming the settlement and stated no objection to quashing the conviction and the Sessions Court order. The applicant's wife handed over a Demand Draft of Rs.13,00,000 to respondent No.1 as full and final settlement. The High Court noted that the Sessions Court had not properly considered the grounds for condonation of delay. However, in view of the settlement, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by allowing the application. The Court quashed and set aside the Sessions Court order dated 5th March 2018 and also set aside the conviction recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The application was allowed in terms of the settlement.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Settlement between parties - Where the complainant and accused have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant has received full settlement amount, the court may quash the conviction and set aside the order rejecting condonation of delay to meet the ends of justice. (Paras 2-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Non-consideration of grounds - Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963 - Sessions Court's failure to properly consider grounds for condonation of delay - In view of subsequent settlement, the High Court set aside the order and quashed the conviction without delving into merits of delay. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and the order rejecting condonation of delay should be quashed in light of an amicable settlement between the parties in a cheque dishonour case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application. The order dated 5th March 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi Court, Mumbai in Criminal Misc. Application No. 134 of 2017 was quashed and set aside. The conviction of the applicant as ordered by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C.No.4400371/SS/2012 was also set aside. Rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- amicable settlement
- compounding of offence
- quashing of conviction
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- condonation of delay
- ends of justice
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 86
Criminal Application No. 633 of 2019
Mr. Ashok M. Bhatia for the Applicant, Mr. S.R. Mishra for Respondent No.1, Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for Respondent No.2 State
N.A. Raghavendra and The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application seeking quashing of conviction and order rejecting condonation of delay in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the order dated 5th March 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi Court, Mumbai rejecting his application for condonation of delay, and setting aside the conviction recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Filing Reason
The applicant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and his appeal was dismissed due to delay; he then approached the High Court challenging the order rejecting condonation of delay.
Previous Decisions
The Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai convicted the applicant in C.C.No.4400371/SS/2012. The Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi Court, Mumbai dismissed the application for condonation of delay in Criminal Misc. Application No. 134 of 2017 on 5th March 2018.
Issues
Whether the conviction and the order rejecting condonation of delay should be quashed in light of an amicable settlement between the parties.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant and respondent No.1 have amicably settled the dispute and respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit stating no objection to quashing the conviction and the Sessions Court order.
The applicant's wife handed over a Demand Draft of Rs.13,00,000 to respondent No.1 as full and final settlement.
Ratio Decidendi
Where the parties in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have amicably settled the dispute and the complainant has received the full settlement amount, the court may quash the conviction and set aside the order rejecting condonation of delay to meet the ends of justice, without delving into the merits of the delay.
Judgment Excerpts
After the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi Court, Mumbai on 5th March,2018 ... the applicant and respondent No.1 herein have arrived at amicable settlement.
It appears that the applicant and respondent No.1 have amicably settled the dispute and to that effect, affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1.
this Court is of the opinion that, an end's of justice would be met in case the Application is allowed in terms of the settlement.
Procedural History
The applicant was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri, Mumbai in C.C.No.4400371/SS/2012. He filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dindoshi Court, Mumbai along with an application for condonation of delay (Criminal Misc. Application No. 134 of 2017). The Sessions Court dismissed the condonation application on 5th March 2018. The applicant then filed Criminal Application No. 633 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court challenging that order. During the pendency of the application, the parties settled the dispute.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Limitation Act, 1963: 5
