Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1604 (RAJ)

Bhag Singh and Sons v. State of Rajasthan

2009-07-15

H.R.PANWAR

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - Issue notice for final disposal Mr. B.S. Kohinoor accepts the notice for respondent No. 2. 2. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that the matter may be heard, and disposed of at the admission stage since the parties have compromised in the matter and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act of 1881" hereinafter) is compoundable. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The respondent No. 2 M/s. Gayatri Shilp Kala Kendra, through its, partner Babu Lal, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against; petitioner firm M/s. Bhag Singh & Sons through its proprietor Surjeet Singh. It appears that on the complaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Pindwara, District Sirohi by respondent No. 2, the trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner. However, according to the petitioner, he was not aware of the complaint case. Be that as it may, the trial Court finding that et t the petitioner could not be traced out and according to the learned course for the parties, the petitioner was declared as absconder and the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C., have been initiated against him. In the meanwhile, the petitioner compromised the matter with complainant, i.e. respondent No. 2 and paid the amount vide receipt dated 11.07.2009 and entered into a compromise and the non-petitioner No. 2 itself has compounded the offence. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the offence under Section 138 is compoundable under Section 147 of the Act of 1881, which reads as under: 147. Offences to be compoundable.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 5. From the plain language of Section 147 of the Act of 1881, it is clear that the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is compoundable even without permission of the Court by the person competent to compound. 5. From the plain language of Section 147 of the Act of 1881, it is clear that the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is compoundable even without permission of the Court by the person competent to compound. In the instant case, the complainant, respondent No. 2, has compounded the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 with the petitioner and a copy of the deed of compromise dated 11.07.2009 has been placed on record along with a receipt, by which various Bank Drafts drawn in favour of the respondent No. 2 have been handed over to the respondent No. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the complainant has received the Bank Drafts and wishes to compound the offence with the petitioner. 6. Therefore, in my view, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to appear before the trial Court on 20.07.2009 and file the compromise deed regarding compounding the offence and if such a compromise application seeking compounding the offence is filed by the respondent No. 2 before the trial Court, the trial Court shall accept the same since the offence is compoundable and compound the offence by passing an order compounding the offence. It is made clear that the effect of compounding the offence is acquittal as per the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The trial Court shall decide the application compounding the offence on the same day. 7. With these directions, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******