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

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