Complainant’s consent should for settlement in cheque bounce circumstances: HC

Complainant’s consent should for settlement in cheque bounce circumstances: HC

Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, Might 13

The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that the complainant’s consent was important for settlement in cheque bounce circumstances. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the Excessive Courtroom asserted the accused couldn’t, as a matter of proper, declare {that a} settlement must be effected as he was unilaterally keen to make good the fee.

Justice Bedi, on the identical time, added the courtroom, in fact, in its discretion would possibly quash such proceedings, if it felt that the complainant’s declare was happy and he had been adequately compensated. The ruling got here in a case the place the counsel for the petitioner-accused quoted judgment within the case of “Damodar S Prabhu versus Syad Babalal” earlier than submitting that the petitioners have been prepared and keen to deposit the requisite quantity to lastly settle the matter. As such, permission was required to be granted to compound the offence.

Referring to a plethora of judgments, Justice Bedi asserted the rivalry of the counsel for the petitioners-accused that the judgment in Damodar case was additionally to the impact {that a} compromise may very well be made with out the consent of all of the events and Part 320 of the CrPC on the compounding of offences had no software was fallacious. That judgment proceeded totally on the idea that there was consent between the events.

Justice Bedi added Part 320 of the CrPC enumerated the style during which the offences have been to be compounded. The exact situation whether or not the consent of the events was essential to compound the offence was handled within the case of “JIK Industries”. Amongst different issues, it was held that the essential mode and method of compounding an offence below Part 320 of the CrPC “couldn’t be stated to be not attracted” in case of compounding an offence below Part 147 of the Negotiable Devices Act. Part 147 made the offences below the Act compoundable with out explaining the style during which it was to happen.

Justice Bedi concluded compounding required the consent of each the events. Even within the absence of such consent, the courtroom within the curiosity of justice may in its discretion shut the proceedings. It successfully meant compounding required consent, quashing didn’t.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Bedi asserted the cheques of Rs 2,24,996 pertained to 2011. The petitioners have been keen to pay Rs 4,00,000. “This fee after 10 years of issuance of cheques, within the courtroom’s opiniont, is grossly insufficient and isn’t enough to compensate the complainant in order to allow this courtroom to train its discretion to shut the proceedings, significantly, within the circumstances, when the complainant is just not keen to consent to compounding,” Justice Bedi added.

Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: