Supreme Court Holds Allottees Who Elected RERA Remedy Cannot Subsequently Seek Interim Relief Under Section 9 Arbitration Act Lodging FIR Does Not Amount To Instigation: Supreme Court Quashes Section 306 IPC Case Against In-Laws Over Husband's Suicide Vigilant Citizen Deserves Acknowledgment: Supreme Court Sets Strict Timelines For 20-Year-Old Subway Project, Lauds Litigant's Relentless Legal Battle Lawyer Cannot Disclose Privileged Information On TV Even If Client Becomes Adversary: Supreme Court Upholds Suspension Of Advocate Rizwan Siddique, Slaps ₹5 Lakh Cost On Both Parties Supreme Court Modifies 3-Year Bar Practice Rule; Orders 1-Year Practice Coupled With 2-Year Academy Training & Clerkship Model Made A Scapegoat Under Pressure Of Public Outcry: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life In POCSO Case Doctrine Of Lis Pendens Applies To Court Auctions; Purchaser Bound By Outcome Of Pending Specific Performance Suit: Allahabad High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Section 65B Evidence Act Objection Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal Two-Month Time Limit To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Of Trade Marks Rules 2017 Is Mandatory; Non-Compliance Results In Deemed Abandonment: Madras High Court SEBI Act | Special Law Overrides General Law': Bombay High Court Quashes Police FIR Against Ex-Axis Mutual Fund Chief Dealer In Front-Running Case 'Truth Cannot Be Sacrificed At The Altar Of Rigid Timelines': Calcutta High Court Upholds Section 311 CrPC Powers At Any Stage For Just Decision 'A Dispute Does Not Cease To Be Criminal Merely Because It Involves Commercial Transaction': Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR In ₹4.39 Cr Land Deal Holding In Designated Centres Only Way If Foreigner Cannot Be Expelled: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail To Declared Foreigner Who Illegally Re-Entered India Madras High Court Issues Guidelines Against Police Harassment Under Guise Of Enquiry, Mandates Written Summons Under Section 179 BNSS Grave Ramifications On Rights': Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance Of Section 82 CrPC Before Declaring Accused As Proclaimed Person 'Interacting With Father Benefits Child's Well-Being': Kerala High Court Grants Virtual Access To Father After Mother Takes Child Abroad Violating Restraint Order Agreement In Family Member’s Name Cannot Shield Occupants Under Section 53-A TP Act': Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Eviction Of Licensees Not Filling A Lacuna: Subsequent Forensic Report From Criminal Case Can Be Produced As Additional Evidence In Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Nomination In FIR Not Enough For Vicarious Liability: Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Accused Under Section 149 IPC Demanding Separations From Depending In-Laws Constitute Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Upholds Divorce Human Memory Not Photographic: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Reiterates 'Falsus In Uno' Maxim Has No Application In India Litigant Claiming To Be Sub-Tenant Before Revenue Authorities Cannot Set Up Plea Of Adverse Possession In Civil Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Civil Death": Orissa High Court Rules Blacklisting Of Contractor Without Specific Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice Delay Irrespective Of Number Of Years Ought To Be Condoned In Land Acquisition Matters': Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 3953 Days Delay 'Notary Cannot Act As Marriage Officer': Madhya Pradesh High Court Accepts Notary's Apology With ₹2 Lakh Welfare Cost, Directs Display Board Against Notarizing Marriages

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.

Latest Legal News