Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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