1

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

J U D G M E N T 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

borrowed a sum of Rupees five lakhs from him promising to repay the same on an

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.