Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances

Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Compounding of Cheque Dishonour Offence without Complainant's Consent

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking the compounding of a cheque dishonour offence without the consent of the complainant. The case, titled Sarda Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Bansal Alloys & Metal Pvt. Ltd., involved a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, along with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners had moved an application for the compounding of the offence, stating their willingness to pay the entire cheque amount. However, both the trial court and the Sessions Judge dismissed the application, emphasizing the necessity of the complainant's consent for compounding. The petitioners contended that their offer to pay the cheque amount should have been sufficient grounds for compounding, relying on various legal precedents.

Examining the matter, the High Court referred to Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates the complainant's consent for the compounding of offences under the Act. It cited judgments of the Supreme Court, including JIK Industries Limited & Ors. v. Amarlal V. Jumani and Another, which clarified the requirement of the complainant's consent. The court also referred to M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. v. Kanchan Mehta, which held that the court could close the proceedings if the cheque amount, along with interest and costs, was paid by a specified date.

The High Court noted that the petitioners had failed to obtain the complainant's consent for compounding and that the cited judgments did not support their claim for compounding solely based on their unilateral application. Additionally, the court considered the petitioners' conduct, as they owed a significant amount and had issued multiple dishonoured cheques.

Based on these considerations, the High Court held that without the complainant's consent, the compounding of the offence could not be permitted. Consequently, the petition seeking compounding without consent was dismissed.

This judgment underscores the importance of obtaining the complainant's consent for the compounding of offences, especially in cases of cheque dishonour. It reaffirms the principle that unilateral applications by the accused cannot override the requirement of the complainant's consent for compounding proceedings.

Decided on: 12.05.2023

Sarda Alloys Pvt. Ltd. And others vs Bansal Alloys & Metal Pvt. Ltd. 

Latest Legal News