Magistrate Cannot Enforce Settlement Order Or Act As Executing Court After Compromise Is Recorded In Cheque Bounce Cases: J&K&L High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar held that such a course is not sanctioned by law and any failure to adhere to the compromise must be addressed only through execution proceedings as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court was dealing with a petition filed by one Sajad Ahmad Malik, who had called in question an order passed by the Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Beerwah, whereby warrants had been issued against him. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the Magistrate had acted beyond jurisdiction after a compromise had already been arrived at between the parties in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

From the record, the High Court noted that the respondent had filed a complaint alleging dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner. During the pendency of the complaint, the parties entered into a compromise deed. The trial Magistrate recorded the statements of the parties in support of the compromise on 06.11.2024.

However, the High Court observed that instead of disposing of the complaint in terms of the compromise, the trial Magistrate proceeded to monitor adherence to the terms of the settlement and effectively acted as an executing court. Justice Dhar found this approach to be legally untenable.

In a clear and categorical observation, the Court held that “instead of disposing of the complaint in terms of the compromise, the learned trial Magistrate has proceeded to monitor adherence of terms of the compromise by the petitioner by acting as an executing court.”

The Court emphasized that such a procedure is alien to the scheme of criminal law governing complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Clarifying the correct legal course, the High Court observed,

“the proper course for the learned trial Magistrate should have been to dispose of the complaint in terms of the compromise and thereafter if the petitioner would not have adhered to terms of the compromise, the respondent should have been given liberty to file execution petition.”

The Court further explained that only upon such an execution petition could the Magistrate proceed against the petitioner by resorting to the provisions contained in Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Dhar was unequivocal in holding that “the procedure adopted by the learned trial Magistrate is not in accordance with law.” The Court thus made it clear that criminal courts cannot continue criminal proceedings or issue coercive process merely to enforce a settlement once a compromise has been recorded and accepted.

In view of these observations, the High Court disposed of the petition with a specific direction to the learned trial Magistrate to proceed in the matter strictly in the manner indicated by the Court. A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the trial Magistrate for compliance.

APPEARANCES:

For Petitioner: Mr. Mir Umar, Advocate.

Case Title: Sajad Ahmad Malik Vs Gulzar Ahmad Wani

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment