Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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