Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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. 

Similar News