S.138 NI Act | Complainant's Consent Not Necessary For Compounding Case When He Is Duly Compensated: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently held that it can compound a case registered under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act, even in absence of consent of the complainant, where the complainant is duly compensated.The observations came from Justice Vivek Singh Thakur while hearing a plea in terms of which the petitioner had challenged Sessions Court's order, upholding the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, in terms of which the petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (NI Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of four months and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the respondent-complainant as compensation. The petitioner submitted that the compensation amount had already been deposited with the High Court registry and he had expressed his willingness for compounding the case by making payment additional payment of 10% of awarded compensation. Counsel for the petitioner also referred to a Supreme Court judgement in Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another versus Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 and contended that in a case of Negotiable Instrument Act, even in absence of consent of complainant, the Court, in the interest of justice on being satisfied that complainant has been duly compensated can close the proceedings and discharge the accused. Contesting the plea the counsel for respondent-complainant communicated refusal of respondent's consent for compounding the case. Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Thakur observed that the provisions of Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act coupled with inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C sufficiently empower the High Court to compound the case even in the absence of consent of complainant where complainant is duly compensated. "Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act does not provide that it is mandatory for the Court to sentence respondent-accused for imprisonment in all eventualities but there is option to the Court to impose sentence of imprisonment or fine or both", the court said. It rejected the argument of the respondent/complainant that a Constitution bench of the apex court (in suo-moto writ petition (CRL) No. (2) of 2020 in Re:- Expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881) has held that judgment in Meters and Instruments case conferring power on the trial Court to discharge an accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is not a good law. It said that the observations in the cited matter do not inhibit inherent power of High Court conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Pointing out to the fact that the petitioner is 52% handicapped and has deposited in the Court 10% over and above the amount of compensation, the court observed that the complainant has been compensated adequately and therefore, a substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him is not necessary. Case Title: Rajinder Kumar Vs Pushpa DeviCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 1Click Here To Read Order

S.138 NI Act | Complainant's Consent Not Necessary For Compounding Case When He Is Duly Compensated: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags