Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Compounds Offense in Dishonoured Cheque Case, Upholding "Essence of Civil Wrong"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, has allowed the compounding of an offence involving dishonoured cheques, emphasizing the civil nature of such wrongs under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case, involving Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. as the appellant against A.S Pharma Pvt. Ltd., dealt with cheques that were dishonoured due to "Payment stopped by Drawer."

Justice Banerjee, in his ruling, stated, "The essence of all the pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court coupled with Section 138 of the N.I. Act is that the consent of the complainant is not mandatory at the time of compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, once the complainant has been equitably compensated." This observation formed the crux of the court's decision to allow the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., setting a precedent for similar cases.

The petitioners, Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd., sought to set aside an earlier order by the Trial Court in a complaint case filed by A.S Pharma Pvt. Ltd. regarding two cheques amounting to Rs. 3,00,000 and Rs. 3,50,000, respectively, which were returned dishonoured. The petitioners expressed their willingness to settle the matter, offering to pay the cheque amounts with a 10% interest and an additional overhead.

Highlighting the compensatory nature of the offence under the N.I. Act, the court observed, "once an accused accepts his liability to pay the cheque amount, there will be no fruitful purpose in keeping the complaint alive." The ruling noted the importance of equitably compensating the complainant and the court's discretion in ensuring justice and preventing the abuse of legal processes.

As per the court's decision, the offence has been compounded subject to the petitioners depositing the cumulative cheque amount with interest and an additional sum within eight weeks. This move is seen as a balancing act between the interests of the complainant and the judicial principle of fairness.

The Delhi High Court's decision sheds light on the nuanced approach required in cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act, especially regarding compounding offences and the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It underscores the importance of equitable compensation in resolving disputes that, while criminal in nature, are essentially rooted in civil wrongs.

Decided on: 13-12-2023

Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. and Others VS  A.S Pharma Pvt. Ltd

 

Latest Legal News