P. Chandrakala vs K. Narender .

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1241 OF 2017 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3152 of 2015]

Smt. P. CHANDRAKALA … APPELLANT

VERSUS

K. NARENDER & ANR. …RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

S. Abdul Nazeer, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent No.1 filed a private complaint before the V Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad (Re-designated as III Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad) against the appellant alleging that the appellant had Signature Not Verified

borrowed a sum of Rupees five lakhs from him promising to repay the same on an Digitally signed by DEEPAK MANSUKHANI Date: 2017.07.25 11:00:54 IST Reason:

agreed interest at the rate of 2.5% per annum and later the appellant did not repay 2

the amount and on repeated demands, the appellant issued post-dated cheque dated

29.8.2000 for Rupees seven lakhs and the said cheque on presentation on 8.2.2001

was returned on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’. The appellant did not pay the

amount in spite of issue of statutory notice. It was, therefore, alleged that the

appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the N.I. Act’).

3. Learned magistrate took the complaint on file as CC No.103 of 2001 under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the appellant. After trial, learned magistrate by

his order dated 20.7.2005 convicted the appellant and sentenced her to undergo

simple imprisonment (SI) for six months and to pay a fine of Rupees five hundred,

in default of payment of fine, she was directed to undergo SI for ten days. She was

also directed to pay a compensation of Rupees seven lakhs under Section 357(3) of

the Cr.P.C. It was further held that if the appellant fails to pay the compensation,

she will have to undergo SI for three months.

4. The appeal filed by the appellant in criminal appeal No.212 of 2005 was

dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 12.1.2006.

5. The appellant challenged the said judgment of the sessions court before the

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad by filing Criminal Revision No.90 of 2006.

The Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court on 12.8.2014. The 3

appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the said order in this

appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of the

revision case before the High Court the matter was compromised. Learned counsel

for the appellant submits that the entire amount has been paid to the first

respondent. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the first

respondent has received the entire amount. Therefore, he has no objection if the

conviction already recorded under Section 138 of the NI Act is set aside.

7. Since the parties have settled their disputes, we allow the parties to

compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below and acquit the

appellant of the charges against her.

8. We are of the view that since the appellant has wasted the public time, while

setting aside the aforesaid orders, she should be burdened with exemplary costs,

which we quantify at Rupees one lakh. The appellant is directed to pay the cost as

ordered by us to an orphanage, namely, Delhi Council for Child Welfare, located at

Qudsia Bagh, Yamuna Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054, within four weeks from

today and produce an acknowledgement for having paid the amount to the

orphanage within one week thereafter. If the appellant fails to produce such

acknowledgement, the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant 4

would revive and the Registrar (Judicial) shall take appropriate further action for

the execution of such revival order.

9. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

…………………………………J. (J. CHELAMESWAR)

…………………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi;

July 24, 2017.