Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Courts Possess Flexibility to Quash Proceedings When Justice Demands It, Even Without Explicit Consent for Compounding U/S 138 N.I.Act: Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court today highlighted its power to quash criminal proceedings in financial dispute cases involving cheque dishonour, emphasizing that justice can be served even without the explicit consent for compounding from the complainant. Justices A.S. Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia stressed the compensatory over punitive measures in cases of cheque dishonour, leading to the quashing of all charges against Raj Reddy Kallem.

Raj Reddy Kallem faced charges under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring cheques, and Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating in a commercial transaction. The legal journey, starting in 2013, saw Kallem convicted in 2015 despite a settlement agreement reached in Lok Adalat that mandated him to repay Rs. 1.55 crores. His initial failure to meet the payment deadlines extended the legal conflict.

The Supreme Court extensively reviewed the principles of the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the importance of the "compensatory aspect of the remedy" over the punitive aspects. The court noted that it retains the flexibility to quash proceedings when justice demands, even absent the complainant’s consent for compounding, reflecting a nuanced approach to justice that prioritizes restitution over punishment.

Quoting from the bench, Justice Bopanna stated, "If we allow the continuance of criminal appeals pending before Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant’s conviction, it would defeat all the efforts of this Court in the last year where this Court had monitored this matter and ensured that the complainant gets her money back."

The discussion also covered the essential need for consent in the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, juxtaposed against the court's discretionary power to ensure justice is served comprehensively.

Decision: The apex court quashed all criminal proceedings against Kallem, including pending criminal appeals against his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, leveraging Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver "complete justice." This decision came after recognizing that Kallem had not only settled the principal amount but also covered additional interest for the payment delay.

The directive was also issued for the trial court to transfer the deposited funds totaling Rs. 30 lakhs to the complainant, effectively closing a lengthy legal chapter.

Date of Decision: April 8, 2024

Raj Reddy Kallem vs. The State of Haryana & Anr.

Similar News