Complainant's consent must for settlement in cheque bounce cases: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 13

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the complainant’s consent was essential for settlement in cheque bounce cases. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the High Court asserted the accused could not, as a matter of right, claim that a settlement should be effected as he was unilaterally willing to make good the payment.

Justice Bedi, at the same time, added the court, of course, in its discretion might quash such proceedings, if it felt that the complainant’s claim was satisfied and he had been adequately compensated. The ruling came in a case where the counsel for the petitioner-accused quoted judgment in the case of “Damodar S Prabhu versus Syad Babalal” before submitting that the petitioners were ready and willing to deposit the requisite amount to finally 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 contention of the counsel for the petitioners-accused that the judgment in Damodar case was also to the effect that a compromise could be made without the consent of all the parties and Section 320 of the CrPC on the compounding of offences had no application was fallacious. That judgment proceeded primarily on the assumption that there was consent between the parties.

Justice Bedi added Section 320 of the CrPC enumerated the manner in which the offences were to be compounded. The precise issue whether the consent of the parties was necessary to compound the offence was dealt with in the case of “JIK Industries”. Among other things, it was held that the basic mode and manner of compounding an offence under Section 320 of the CrPC “could not be said to be not attracted” in case of compounding an offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 147 made the offences under the Act compoundable without explaining the manner in which it was to take place.

Justice Bedi concluded compounding required the consent of both the parties. Even in the absence of such consent, the court in the interest of justice could in its discretion close the proceedings. It effectively meant compounding required consent, quashing did not.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Bedi asserted the cheques of Rs 2,24,996 pertained to 2011. The petitioners were willing to pay Rs 4,00,000. “This payment after 10 years of issuance of cheques, in the court’s opiniont, is grossly inadequate and is not sufficient to compensate the complainant so as to enable this court to exercise its discretion to close the proceedings, particularly, in the circumstances, when the complainant is not willing to consent to compounding,” Justice Bedi added.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.