Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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