Court Cannot Compel Complainant To Give His Consent For Compounding Of Offence Of Cheque Dishonour: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking direction to the complainant to compound the offence committed under the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Kuldeep Tiwari underscored the Court's inability to compel the complainant's consent for compounding the offence without proper legal grounds.

The Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) challenged a Trial Court's order that had denied the petitioners' application under Section 147 of the NI Act seeking compounding of the offence. The petitioners had been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonouring a cheque amounting to Rs. 25,00,000 each, with a direction to undergo two years of imprisonment and pay compensation to the complainant.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in "JIK Industries Limited & Others v. Amarlal V. Jamuni & Another" (2012), emphasizing that consent from the complainant is mandatory for compounding offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court further highlighted the Apex Court's stance in "Raj Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana," affirming that courts cannot force complainants to consent to compounding solely based on the accused compensating them.

The Court noted, "In the instant matter, it reflects from the record that the dispute is not only with regard to Rs.50 lacs, rather the dispute between the petitioners and the complainant is with regard to an amount of Rs.1,73,56,543/-, which was outstanding as on 28.03.2016."

"Therefore, this Court cannot compel the complainant to give his consent, or, in the alternative exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, without the consent of the complainant, for ordering compounding of the offence by directing the petitioner to make payment of the cheque amount and/or the compensation amount, which the petitioners have now themselves offered before this Court. Consequently, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order and the same is ordered to be upheld and the instant petition is ordered to be dismissed," the Court said it its order dated May 18. 

Cause Title: Surinder Kumar Bindal and Anr. v. Satinder Nath Radhey Shyam and Sons [Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:070383]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Shreenath A. Khemka

Respondent: Advocate Rishab Gupta 

Click here to read/download the Judgment