Orissa High Court
Deepak Sahoo vs Sonali Swain ….. Opposite Party on 24 June, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2238 of 2025
Deepak Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Rajjeet Roy
-versus-
Sonali Swain ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Mohit Agarwal
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 24.06.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. 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
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.
(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.
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
application is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Rubi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Page 6 of 6.
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 25-Jun-2025 17:56:36