Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010115562026 2026:GAU-AS:10344 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./829/2026 SRI UDDHAB CHANDRA DEKA S/O- LT. HARENDRA DEKA, R/O-SARTHEBARI, WARD NO.1 SALAKATHAIATHER CHUPA, P.O. P.S.-SARTHEBARI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM. PIN-781307 VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:SRI UTPAL DEKA SON OF MADAN DEKA R/O- SARTHEBARI P.O. P.S.-SARTHEBARI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM. PIN-781307 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B. DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. N BARDOLOI(R2),L DEKA(R2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 28.07.2026 Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Deka, Page No.# 2/7 learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent No.1 2. This application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is preferred by the petitioner, namely, Uddhab Chandra Deka, seeking compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also consequential setting aside of the judgment and order of conviction, dated 10.10.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, in N.I. Case No.98/2018. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood convicted in N.I. Case No.98/2018, by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, vide judgment and order, dated 10.10.2023, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5(five) months and also to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (twice the amount of cheque) and further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 4(four) months, in default of payment of fine amount. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the said judgment and order of conviction, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta, being Crl.A. No.43/2023, but the same came to be dismissed. And thereafter, they have preferred one Criminal Revision Petition No.341/2024, before this Court and the same was also dismissed and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction, dated 10.10.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and presently he is in jail hazot serving Page No.# 3/7 the sentence. 4.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegation against the petitioner relates to bouncing of cheque issued by him for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and he unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment and order before the learned appellate court and also before this court. He also submits that having been unsuccessful in appeal and revision, the petitioner is serving out the sentence. He further submits that in the meantime behind the bar and in the meantime, the wife of the petitioner, namely, Girija Deka and the complainant/respondent, namely, Utpal Deka effected a compromise and also executed one deed of compromise, dated 29.05.2026, and as per the said deed of compromise, the petitioner herein would pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 12.08.2026, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- on or before 12.11.2026 and a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on or before 12.01.2027 and he has already paid Rs.3,60,000/- out of total Rs.8,00,000/- so imposed by the learned Trial Court. 4.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act and also in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, the judgment and order of conviction can be set aside on the basis of the compromise deed, since the parties have settled the dispute amicably, and the petitioner is agreed to pay rest of the compensation amount. Therefore, he has contended to allow the petition, by setting-aside the judgment and order of conviction. 5. Per Contra, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this petition by setting aside the judgment and order of conviction in view of Section 147 of the N.I. Act and also Page No.# 4/7 in view of amicable settlement of the dispute by the parties. 6. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, in N.I. Case No.98/2018. 7. It appears that the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5(five) months and also to pay compensation, amounting Rs.8,00,000/- i.e. twice the amount of cheque. 8. Indisputably, the petitioner herein has paid a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- to the respondent No.2 and there remains to be paid a sum of Rs.4,40,000/-. And vide compromise deed, dated 29.05.2026, which annexed with this petition as Annexure- ‘E’, both the parties have settled their dispute. In terms of the settlement, the petitioner herein, has agreed to pay the remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,40,000/- in three installments. 9. The law with regards to compounding of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is well settled in catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reference in this context can be made to a decision in K.M.Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed reported in (2010) 1 SCC 798. In the said case it has been held as under:- “13. As far as the non obstante clause included in Section 147 of the 1881 Act is concerned, the 1881 Act being a special statute, the provisions of Section 147 will have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Code relating to compounding of offences. … Page No.# 5/7 14. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the proceedings had been concluded before the appellate forum. However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution.” 9.1. Same proposition is reiterated in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). However, in the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has in paragraph No.21 has laid the guidelines 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 Page No.# 6/7 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.” 10. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and in view of the compromise deed, also in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), this Court is of the view that there is merit in this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS and Section 147 of N.I. Act. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition, subject however to the condition that the petitioner has to pay 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. 10.1. This Court not oblivious of the fact that the present proceeding is neither Page No.# 7/7 appeal nor revision. Yet, in view of the compromise, being effected at a very belated stage, and also considering the rationale behind imposing cost in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), this court is inclined to apply the same in the present proceeding. 11. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction, dated 10.10.2023, passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta, in N.I. Case No.98/2018, stands set aside and quashed. The petitioner, who is languishing in jail hazot, shall be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case. 12. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant