- (1.) Heard counsel for the revisionist, counsel for opposite party no. 2 and AGA for opposite party no. 1, and perused the record.
(2.) Revisionist was convicted under section 138 of N.I. Act and was sentenced for imprisonment of one year and Rs. 70,000/- as fine by judgement dated 25.2.2011 of ACJM, Court No. 2, Meerut. Against said judgement, Criminal Appeal no. 114 of 2011, Mahesh Chand Vs. Nand Kishor Sharma was preferred, which was dismissed by judgement dated 31.1.2016 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut. Against these judgements revisionist had preferred present criminal revision.
(3.) At the time of hearing of revision, joint affidavit has been filed by revisionist Mahesh Chand and opposite party no.-2/ complainant Nand Kishore Sharma that they have settled their dispute outside the court by compromise; and in terms of said compromise complainant Nand Kishore Sharma had received Rs. 70,000/- in lieu of his cheque (of Rs.50,000/-) for dishonour by which prosecution has been carried out on his behalf. When it was enquired by the court as to whether such matter may be compromised in revision, the counsel for the revisionist cited Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 5 SCC 663 in which Hon'ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines which are as under: "21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed: 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. (b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before 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." "25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end.";