SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. – Appellants
Versus
Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3051 – 3052 of 2024 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos.9766-9767 of 2024) (Arising out of D. No.11530 of 2024)
Decided on : 23-07-2024
[N.I. Act] - [Compounding of Offences] - [Section 138, Section 147 of the N.I. Act, Section 320, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.] - [The court discussed the compounding of offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing that while Section 147 allows for compounding, it requires the consent of the complainant. The High Court's decision to compound the offence without such consent was deemed erroneous. The court clarified that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used to bypass statutory requirements, and the necessity of complainant consent for compounding was reaffirmed.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondents. The respondents sought to compound the offence, but the Trial Court dismissed their application. The High Court later compounded the offence without the appellant's consent, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in compounding the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the complainant's consent, despite the respondents having deposited the required amount. The court emphasized that consent is mandatory for compounding under Section 147 of the N.I. Act.
Issues: Whether the High Court could compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act without the consent of the complainant, and the interpretation of the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the N.I. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can only be compounded with the consent of the complainant, and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to bypass this requirement.
Final Decision: The court set aside the High Court's order compounding the offence and quashed the complaint, allowing the appellant to withdraw the deposited amount.
ORDER :
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 970 of 2023 and Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3701 of 2023. The appellant filed Complaint Case No. 5564 of 2022 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’) against the respondents. On receipt of the summons, the respondents appeared before the Court and expressed their readiness to settle the matter by effecting the payment. An application to permit to compound the offence was filed under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Cr.P.C.’). The Trial Court dismissed the same as per order dated 06.02.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, respondents took up the matter before the High Court challenging the order dismissing the application for compounding the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act also seeking quashment of C.C. No.5564 of 2022 and all further proceeding thereon in Criminal M. C. No. 970 of 2023. As per the impugned judgment the High Court, apparently, exercised the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., coupled with those under Section 147, N.I. Act, and ordered thus:-
“17. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the offence of the petitioners/accused persons in Complaint Case No.5564/2022 titled A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. pending before the learned Trial Court is hereby compounded, albeit subject to the petitioners depositing before the concerned learned Trial Court the cumulative cheque(s) amount of Rs.6,50,000/-(Rs. Six Lakhs fifty thousand only) with 12% simple interest per annum thereon from the date of cheque(s) return memo i.e. 18.03.2020 till the date of actual payment of the amount as also a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-Rs. One Lakh only), within a period of eight weeks. Needless to mention, the amount, if any, already deposited before the learned Trial Court be adjusted in the aforesaid sum(s). The respondent/complainant is free to move an appropriate application for release of the amount deposited before the learned Trial Court in above terms.”
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The core contention of the appellant is that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and in such circumstances, the application was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. Ergo, invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., coupled with those under Section 147, N.I. Act, the High Court ought not to have compounded the offence without the consent of the appellant.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when the indisputable position is that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act, no palpable illegality could be attributed to the action in invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C, coupled with the power under Section 147, N.I. Act to compound the offence. The said contention of the respondents was resisted by the learned counsel for the appellant contending that for compounding the offence, consent of the complainant is required. Sans consent from the complainant, the High Court was not justified in compounding of the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, it is further contended.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that though the High Court entertained the challenge against the order rejecting an application for compounding the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act filed under Section 320 Cr.P.C., the High Court actually compounded the offence invoking its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., coupled with the power under Section 147 of the N.I. Act. To consider the legality and correctness of the said exercise of power, it is imperative to unders
Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 8 SCC 781] [Para 6]
Arvind Barsaul (Dr.) v. State of M.P. [(2008) 5 SCC 794] [Para 7]
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) [Para 10]
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663] [Para 13]
K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr. [(2010) 1 SCC 798] [Para 13]
O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana & Anr. [(2000) 1 SCC 762] [Para 13]
JIK Industries Ltd. & Ors v. Amarlal V.Jumani & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 255] [Para 14]
Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. [2024 INSC 347] [Para 15]
Meters and Instruments Private Ltd. & Anr. V. Kanchan Mehta [(2018) 1 SCC 560] [Para 15]
Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138, N.I. Act, 1881, In re
State of Punjab & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 489] [Para 18]
The compounding of offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act requires the consent of the complainant, and the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be used to circumvent this requirement.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – Compounding of offence – Section 482, Cr.P.C. and Section 147, N.I. Act, are different and distinct – Offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded under Section 1....
Dishonoured of Cheque - Amicable Settlement - Guidelines as laid down in case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) and taking into account fact that parties have settled dispute amicably, in view of this cou....
The compounding of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is permissible without the consent of the complainant if the accused has been duly compensated, and the Court can use its inherent powers und....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of dishonour of cheques, the compensatory aspect of the remedy should be given priority over the punitive aspect. The court also emph....
Point of Law : Operation or effect of a general Act can be curtailed by special Act even if a general Act contains a non-obstante clause and as such, provisions contained under Section 320 Cr.P.C. wo....
An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be compounded with the consent of the complainant, as reiterated by the court.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.