Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

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