Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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