Compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the complainant's consent; unilateral agreements are insufficient to quash criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since common questions of law and fact arise in these batch of petitions, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. By way of this petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting proceedings of Criminal Case Nos.6676 of 2014, 6677 of 2014, 6675 of 2014 and 6674 of 2014 as well as all other consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR qua the petitioners herein.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The petitioner No.1 is engaged in the business inter-alia of manufacturing TV tubes and is also supplying the same to various end consumers, manufacturing television.

3.2 That on account of several financial difficulties confronted by the petitioner, the petitioners had approached Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and the case of the petitioners was registered on 31.3.2002. The respondent complainant is also aware about the aforesaid aspect. In view of the settled legal position, the commencement of the proceedings before BIFR is considered to have been commenced, from the date of registration of the reference and accordingly, Section 22 of the said Act would come into operation the moment it is registered. In view of the specific bar contained under Section 22 , all proceedings against the Company including execution proceedings and/or recovery proceedings and/or alike including recovery suits are not maintainable. The aforesaid fact was within the knowledge as aforesaid to the respondent complainant.

3.3 That during the course of proceedings before BIFR, after appropriate inquiry under Section 16 , 17, 18 and 19 of the said Act, the BIFR has been pleased to declare the petitioners as Sick Industrial undertaking vide order dated 12.3.2007 and a scheme is framed and operating agency is also appointed accordingly. The scheme is in force for the period 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2017.

3.4 That impugned complaint is filed on account of dishonour of 3 cheques, viz. (i) cheque No.001123 dated 17.10.2013 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, (ii) cheque No.001124 dated 19.10.2013 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, and (iii) cheque No.001125 dated 21.10.2013 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

3.5 Said complaints are culminated into Criminal Case No. 6674 of 2014, Criminal Case No. 6675 of 2014, Criminal Case No. 6676 of 2014 (the impugned complaint) and Criminal Case No. 6677 of 2014 pending before the Court at Vadodara.

3.6 The petitioners paid the amount of cheque dishonoured being root cause of criminal complaint, during trial. Yet criminal complaint continued to proceeding. Hence, present petition.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. DK Puj appearing for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Rajendra Golani appearing for the respondent No.1 as well as learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave appearing for the state.

5. The short substance of arguments of learned advocate Mr. DK Puj is as under:-

5.1 That JCT Electronics Limited petitioner and the original accused has paid substantial amounts by cheque to the complainant during pendency of the trial.

5.2 That the disputes between the parties have been settled since the amount in question have already paid.

5.3 That in view of letters produced at Annexure III and Annexure IV, JCT Electronics Limited has specifically stated that they are paying the amount as against the settlement in the Criminal Cases. However, the complainant, instead of accepting the amo