Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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