IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.Surender, J.
M/s. Tricon Fruit Products Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director and another - Petitioners
Vs.
M/s. Progressive Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director and others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No.2051 OF 2020
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 258 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds - Power to stop proceedings in certain cases, from Code of Criminal Procedure - Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see Judgments - petitioners have committed an error in deciding the compensation and paying an amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the cheque amount (Para 13).
Finding of the Court: Accused can make an application for compounding at first or second hearing in which case Court ought to allow same - While dealing with prayer of closing proceedings after commencement of trial, discretion is left open to Court to close proceedings - Magistrate is directed to consider prayer of accused while deciding quantum of compensation by Court - Needless to say discretion is left to learned Magistrate to decide quantum of compensation to close proceedings or conclude proceedings as per procedure by delivering Judgment on basis of evidence
Result: Petition disposed off
ORDER :
1. The petitioners/A1 & A2 are questioning the correctness of orders made in the Crl.R.P.No.88 of 2019, dt.03.02.2020, on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the orders of the learned XII Special Magistrate, Erramanzil, Hyderabad, dt.15.05.2019 in Crl.MP.No.1442 of 2019 in C.C.No.231/2018, whereby the Learned Magistrate refused the cheque amount of Rs.17,21,250/- and Rs.50,000/- towards costs of compensation, which were filed by the accused at the stage of arguments along with petition under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Learned Counsel for petitioners/A1 & A2 submits that the Learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge erred in not considering the application made by the accused wherein they have furnished DDs for the cheque amount and also an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. Learned Magistrate ought to have directed the accused to accept the said cheques and stop proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. and consequently should have recorded acquittal.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for 1st respondent/complainant submits that the orders of the learned Magistrate and consequential confirmation of the said orders by the learned Sessions Judge are in accordance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, as such, needs no interference.
4. He further argued that the case was prosecuted in the year 2014 and at the stage of final arguments the said DDs were filed before the concerned Court and the learned Magistrate was right in holding that there is no consent of the complainant for which reason the petition filed under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The said finding of the learned Magistrate is on the basis of the Judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in JIK Industries Limited and others vs. Amarlal V.Jumani and another, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1079.
5. Section 258 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows;
6. As per section 258 CRPC, in appropriate cases, the Magistrate has powers to stop the proceedings without pronouncing any Judgment and if the said orders which are made under Section 258 after evidence of witnesses, the Judgment of acquittal has to be pronounced. If witnesses are not examined, the accused has to be discharged.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners/A1 & A2 filed petition under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. along with the cheque amount and compensation of Rs.50,000/- placing reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another v. Kanchan Mehta, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4594. However, the learned Magistrate relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in JIK Industries Limited (cited supra 1), to dismiss the petition of Petitioners.
8. In JIK Industries Limited case, it was held that unless the consent of the aggrieved person/Complainant is present, the offence cannot be compounded.
9. In view of the heavy pendency of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, throughout the country, several steps are taken and directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to reduce pendency.
10. The Honourable Supreme Court in case of M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited (cited supra 2) held that in regard to the magnitude of the cases pending under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, certain directions would expedite the proceedings un
M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another v. Kanchan Mehta
Accused can make an application for compounding at first or second hearing in which case the Court ought to allow same.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, based on the compensatory and punitive elemen....
The court can quash proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act if the accused compensates the complainant adequately, even without consent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the consent of the complainant is essential for compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, highlighting t....
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 the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is primarily a civil wrong, and the principles related to compounding of the offence, consent of....
The modification of conditions for suspension of sentence highlights the principle that accused typically seek relief without conditions, and the court must determine applicability under exceptions.
Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence – Appellate Court has discretion not to order deposit of 20% of amount under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act in appropriate and exceptional case....
Dishonour of cheque – In interest of justice, High Court is not precluded from compounding case in absence of consent of complainant where complainant is duly compensated.
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.