Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee 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. 

Latest Legal News