Whether case for dishonour of cheque can be compounded after conviction and sentence?

The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in Criminal Application (Main)
No. 247/2008, Shri Satish Vaman Madkaikar Vs. Shri Xavier
D'Sozua and Another, dated 07.10.2008, in which this Court after
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court, in Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Balvinder Kaur Hardipsingh
Lobana and Another, reported in 2004 Criminal Law Journal 3786,
had granted permission for compounding in similar circumstances,
namely after the judgment of conviction and sentence was
confirmed by this Court.
 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
perused record. This Court in Criminal Application (Main) No.
247/2008 has inter alia held that compounding of the offence can
be permitted in the interest of justice, even after the conviction
and sentence is confirmed by this Court.
9. The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.3,375/- in
Goa State Legal Services Authority, in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663.
10. In the circumstances, the following order is passed:
(a) The criminal application is allowed.
(b) The parties are permitted to compound the
offence.
(c) The impugned conviction and sentence is
set aside on account of the offence being
permitted to be compounded.
(d) The complaint filed by the respondent no.
1 stands dismissed.
(e) The appellant is acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (MAIN) NO. 98 OF 2015

Kashinath Balu Gaonkar V  Sunita Krishnajirao Dessai,

CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
 DATE:- 18thAPRIL, 2015
Citation; 2016 ALLMR(CRI)1087

2. Heard Ms. Shetye, learned Counsel for the appellant
and Shri Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1.
3. The respondent no. 1 had filed a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, for
short), before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji in
Criminal Case No. 800/OA/2007/A. By judgment and order dated
15.03.2014, the appellant was convicted for the said offence and
has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and
to pay Rs.40,000/- within two months and in default to undergo
imprisonment for three months.
4. The Criminal Appeal No. 34/2014, filed by the appellant
against the said judgment, has been dismissed on 29.01.2015.
The appellant further challenged the same before this Court in
Criminal Revision Application No. 14/2015. By judgment and
order dated 13.02.2015, this Court has dismissed the same. The
appellant is undergoing the sentence.
5. The petitioner has now filed the present criminal
application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
for permission to compound the offence and consequent quashing
of the conviction and sentence. The parties have settled the
matter and the appellant has agreed to pay Rs.70,000/- to the
respondent no. 1 by a Demand Draft.
6. The respondent no. 1 is present before the Court and
she is identified by Advocate Shri Bhobe. She admits the factum
of settlement.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on a decision of this Court in Criminal Application (Main)
No. 247/2008, Shri Satish Vaman Madkaikar Vs. Shri Xavier
D'Sozua and Another, dated 07.10.2008, in which this Court after
placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High
Court, in Kirpalsingh Pratapsingh Vs. Balvinder Kaur Hardipsingh
Lobana and Another, reported in 2004 Criminal Law Journal 3786,
had granted permission for compounding in similar circumstances,
namely after the judgment of conviction and sentence was
confirmed by this Court.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
perused record. This Court in Criminal Application (Main) No.
247/2008 has inter alia held that compounding of the offence can
be permitted in the interest of justice, even after the conviction
and sentence is confirmed by this Court.
9. The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.3,375/- in
Goa State Legal Services Authority, in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663.
10. In the circumstances, the following order is passed:
(a) The criminal application is allowed.
(b) The parties are permitted to compound the
offence.
(c) The impugned conviction and sentence is
set aside on account of the offence being
permitted to be compounded.
(d) The complaint filed by the respondent no.
1 stands dismissed.
(e) The appellant is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(f) The appellant be set at liberty, forthwith, if
not required in connection with any other case.
(g) The criminal application is disposed in the
aforesaid terms.
C. V. BHADANG, J.