Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Section 138 NI Act Offence is Quasi-Criminal, Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC Not Applicable- J&K&L HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) is quasi-criminal, as it imposes a criminal penalty in the form of imprisonment or fine. The bench, headed by Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, was hearing a petition seeking to quash an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court.

In this case, the respondent had filed three complaints against the petitioner on November 22, 2014, under the NI Act, alleging that three cheques issued by the petitioner had bounced, amounting to a total of Rs. 35.50 lakhs. However, during the pendency of the complaints, the petitioner and respondent entered into a compromise, agreeing that the petitioner would pay the entire amount by the end of June 2015. A settlement/compromise deed was executed and submitted before the Magistrate.

Based on the compromise, the Magistrate dismissed two complaints and acquitted the accused petitioner of the charges under Section 138 of the Act, but retained the third complaint for further proceedings. The Magistrate observed that since the petitioner and respondent had voluntarily entered into a compromise and the accused had undertaken to abide by it, the third complaint was also disposed of as compromised. However, the Magistrate directed the accused petitioner to pay the entire amount of Rs. 35.50 lakhs to the complainant respondent, relying on the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides for recovery of the agreed amount in case of breach of the compromise.

The High Court noted that the compromise had failed before it could be administered in all three complaints, and therefore, the Magistrate should have proceeded with the third complaint in accordance with the law, without relying on the compromise. The bench further stated that the Magistrate could not have imported the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC while dealing with the third complaint, as the nature of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is quasi-criminal, and the proceedings are regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.). The High Court opined that the Magistrate had misdirected in the matter while passing the impugned order.

Mohammad Ashraf Wani v. Muzamil Bashir

Latest Legal News