Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

High Court Rules in Favour of Compounding in Cheque Bounce Cases, Stresses on Adequate Compensation Over Punishment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set a new precedent in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Single Bench, presided over by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, emphasized the importance of adequate compensation over punitive measures in such cases.

The judgment, delivered on December 7, 2023, revolved around 15 petitions led by Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd., challenging an order passed by the Sessions Judge, which had set aside a decision of the Judicial Magistrate and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The controversy stemmed from the Magistrate's order permitting the petitioners to pay the cheque amount with an additional Rs. 5000 as interest and costs.

Justice Brar, in his ruling, underscored, "Once the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act has been made compoundable and the recovery of the cheque amount has already been effected, there would be no justification to make the petitioners suffer the ordeal of trial." This observation signifies a shift towards a more reconciliatory approach in dealing with cheque bounce cases, focusing on restitution rather than criminal prosecution.

The High Court observed that the proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-criminal in nature and are intended more to compensate the aggrieved party rather than to punish the offender. Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, the Court highlighted that the primary goal is the expeditious recovery of money.

In the present case, the respondent had initially accepted the cheque amount along with the additional costs but later contested the order in a revision petition. Addressing this, the Court remarked, "A perusal of the statement of the respondent-complainant indicates that she accepted the cheque amount of Rs.5,78,125/- along with Rs.5000/- as interest and costs. There was not even a whisper in the said statement that she accepted the amount under protest."

In a move to ensure adequate compensation, the Court directed the petitioners to pay interest at 5% per annum on the cheque amount from the date of its issuance till its realization. On compliance with this directive, the proceedings against the petitioners would be dropped, treating the matter as compounded.

This judgment is expected to have significant implications for the handling of cheque bounce cases, potentially reducing the burden on the judicial system by encouraging settlements and focusing on compensatory rather than punitive outcomes.

 

Decided on : 07-12-2023

MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS vs MONIKA SODHI AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News