The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has issued a definitive ruling asserting that compensation awarded in criminal proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , cannot be recovered through a separate civil recovery suit . Presided over by Justice Maulik J. Shelat, the court upheld the rejection of an amendment application filed by the plaintiffs, who had sought to consolidate their existing civil claims with the compensation amounts previously determined by a criminal court. This decision reinforces the legal boundary between civil remedies and the specific enforcement mechanisms provided under the criminal justice system.

The dispute stems from Special Civil Suit No. 442 of 2014 , in which the plaintiffs, Kailashben Arunkumar Prajapati and another, initiated recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of the late Sandipkumar Fatehsinh Vasava. The original suit was filed to recover Rs. 31,22,659 following the dishonour of several cheques . Parallel to this civil litigation, the plaintiffs had instituted criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . While the initial trial court acquitted the accused, the Gujarat High Court later set aside those acquittals in 2018 , directing the accused to pay a cumulative compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 across two criminal cases.

Following the subsequent death of the original defendant in May 2021 and the dismissal of his appeals by the Supreme Court of India due to abatement , the plaintiffs sought to amend their pending 2014 civil suit. They aimed to incorporate the compensation amounts awarded in the criminal proceedings, along with interest and approximately Rs. 8,50,000 in accumulated legal expenses. Had the amendment been allowed, the total claim in the suit would have surged to Rs. 78,85,659. The 24th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Vadodara rejected this application in March 2024 , leading the plaintiffs to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

Distinguishing Civil and Criminal Causes of Action

During the proceedings, the High Court scrutinized the fundamental legal premise of the plaintiffs' request. When questioned regarding the legal feasibility of recovering criminal court-mandated compensation through a civil suit, the plaintiffs' counsel referenced provisions within the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 , and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . However, the High Court observed that these very statutes prescribe distinct, sufficient procedures for the recovery of such awards, rendering a parallel civil suit redundant and legally inappropriate.

Justice Shelat remarked in the judgment, “the plaintiff has no right to sue against the defendant so far as recovery of amount of compensation by filing any civil suit, inasmuch as the amount of compensation is already determined by the competent Court as per the provisions of BNSS Section 395 ( Cr.P.C. Section 357 ).”

The court further elucidated that the attempt to integrate these claims into the existing civil suit failed the " real controversy " test, as the issues were fundamentally different. The court held that the criminal compensation claim arose from a distinct cause of action separate from the underlying debt-recovery dispute, and therefore could not be adjudicated as part of the same suit. By attempting to merge these distinct claims, the plaintiffs were effectively misusing the amendment process to introduce a new cause of action rather than clarifying the existing dispute.

Rejection of Legal Expense Recovery

A significant portion of the plaintiffs' proposed amendment involved the recovery of legal fees and costs incurred while pursuing the criminal cases up to the Supreme Court. The High Court dismissed this addition with similar firmness, noting that such expenses had no direct nexus to the cause of action in the original civil suit. Because these costs were incurred in a completely different judicial forum, they could not be tagged onto the existing civil recovery process. The court clarified that if the plaintiffs intended to pursue the recovery of these specific costs as a distinct financial claim, they would need to initiate separate, appropriate legal proceedings, rather than attempting to shoehorn them into a decade-old suit.

Addressing the broader scope of the amendment application , the court noted: “The amendment sought for is not to resolve the real controversy rather it is an additional claim made based on different cause of action .”

Implications for Procedural Integrity

The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the limitations on the scope of amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) . While the judiciary generally maintains a liberal approach toward allowing amendments that help resolve the real questions in controversy, this does not grant a carte blanche to litigants to alter the nature of a suit or introduce entirely new, unrelated claims. The court emphasized that even if the court were to assume a right existed to recover criminal compensation via civil proceedings, such a path remains incompatible with the established, separate procedures mandated for criminal matters.

By dismissing the petition, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has ensured that the original civil suit will proceed strictly on its merits regarding the dishonoured cheques, without being burdened by the introduction of criminal compensation orders or extraneous legal costs. This decision underscores the necessity for legal practitioners to respect the jurisdictional demarcations between different types of legal proceedings. The plaintiffs’ request for an amendment, if allowed, would have caused significant prejudice and confusion in the adjudication process by blurring the lines between established criminal and civil remedies . The matter now continues before the trial court, restricted to the original scope and claims presented by the plaintiffs in 2014 . No orders were issued regarding costs in the present petition, leaving the litigation to conclude through its standard course.