Compromise - sec 138 ni act

dear Sir

My name Pushpendra Singh Bhadouriya

Me M.P Bhind Se Hu Mere dada ji ji ne kuchh proparti kharidi thi

 jo ji ab kuchh log uspar abed kabja kar rhe hai jabki Documents

me wo mere father & chacha ji ke name hai  jab mene usko patwari or R.I ke

Madhyam Napbaya To Unhone unke Hisse me Napdi Jo ki galat hai

mujhe aap bataye me kya kru apni propartiko prapt kar  sako

My No 9713203633

Cheque bouncing is a bailable compoundable offence meaning thereby that the so called accused can be sentenced if your lawyer is fully and perfectly able to nail him and the accused person after being so perfectly nailed, demonstrates his inability to pay - which is a very rare possibility and very rarely done.

Going by your details, it seems that there are lapses from your own side otherwise such matters do not take that long as 7 years for cross examination. You must consult some other lawyer also with complete case file or allow someone to inspect your court case file.

Compromise call by the accused person is very usual and there is nothing special in it because finally also the case is destined to compromise which the court may also order as compounding amount and you are probably referring this same thing as penalty. Maximum double the cheque amount could be awarded by the Court if there would'nt have been any delays or lapses from your side. When such are the cases and compounding  is legal, there is no such term as out of court settlement because anytime the accused person may submit his desire in the court to pay the cheque amout.

Since the complainant himself is no more, You should concentrate on expediting the court proceedings under the guidance and supervision of a good new lawyer;

Cross examination or deposition of your mother will not have any serious bearing on the case as she is a virtual complainant in shoes of the complainant, still she should be prepared and taught to appear in court and face the opposite party lawyer intelligently and strategically in favour of the case.

NI Act is very liberal in favour of the accused.  If the accused comes forward to pay the cheque amount into the court at any time even in the appeal state, the court can compound the case without the consent of the complainant.  There are several supreme court judgements in this regard.  My advise is to compromise with the otherside by taking cheque amount plus legal expenses, damages for wastage of time and mental tension.  

Dear Mr. Verma,

I also agree with Mr. Ravinder in present senario of Courts, and there are several rulings from apex court in which compounding can be allowed by courts at any stages of the case if the accused is ready to pay the Cheque amount.

Thanks

Respected Sirs,

With due respect to everybody, I do not agree with "the court can compound the case without the consent of the complainant", please provide citation if there is one regarding this, but still agree with remaining advise. 

Dear Madam,

I do agree with you that the court cannot compound the case without the consent of the complainant, as this position was only cleared after the decision of Supreme Court in Case of JIK industries V/s Amar Lal Jumani in Feb 2012. Because after SC decision in Damodar Prabhu Case in May 2010, the situation was worse and courts decided matters in that manner, even i have faced 2-3 cases in similar manner, where against wish of complainant, the matter was compounded since the accused is ready to pay on intial 2-3 dates.

You may appreciate that evenafter the SC decision in JIK industries the courts are still inclined to decide the matter thorough compounding if the Accused is ready to pay.

Thanks.

Respected Sir,

That is why I agreed with the remaining advise.

I thank Manish kumar gupta for giving citation of Sup court.  And my suggestion is that the sup. court should bring a ruling vide its judgement that atleast double of the cheque amount should be granted to the complainant, otherwise there is no use of filing cheque bounce case and there should be a slight punishment to the accused for bouncing the cheque, othrwise there is no meaning to the sec. 138 of NI Act at all.  

Respected Sirs Ravinder.P and others,

I am thankful that on this site also, there are persons who understand the pain of complainant/victim/payee of cheques in terms of compensation also. But I don’t agree that in every case, the twice of the face value should be got given, but  the compensation should be decided as per law that is given upto some extent in Negotiable Instrument Act itself .  Is any learned advocate interested in filing Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court for the cause of justice(not for fees) on the following points that will reduce the workload of judicial system and enhance the economy of India if anyone wants the loan, there is no need of  having assests like immovable property, gold etc, but simply post dated cheques will be enough, if our judicial system work properly, the same time giving quick justice to victim/payee by not allowing for dragging the case for years without any merit, simply by not attending court hearings and getting bail forfeited and given again and again without any loss to accused who drags the proceedings for his benefit only and at the end if case is ended in conviction, the accused should not be free without compensating the victime/payee fully. Followings are the points that needs to be decided at the Supreme Court level as all are given in law or decided elsewhere:

1-     Mandatory interest  @ 18% p.a. per year section 80 of N I Act, because Amount Due as per section 82 c and full compensation u/s 117 of N I Act

2-     Interest Quaterly compounded, Supreme Court’ 5 judges’ bench decided in Central Bank of India vs.Ravindra and ors. Decided On: 18.10.2001

 3-     Cost per hearing @ 500/- per hearing or atleast 1% of face value of cheque per hearing, which ever is higher

2. the complete  compensatin should be given at one trial, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and it has been provided that the quantem of amount of compensation should be given to victim equal and if the said can be given in Civil suit also as per Section 357 Crpc.
3. one year imprisonmenrt in 1988, in 2002 being proved inadequate, it was enhanced to two years. So sentence should be between one year to two year, because as per SC no court can flout the mandate of Parliament.
4. offence being bailable, but right only one time in 436 Crpc. IInd time until the due amount of cheque is not deposited, he should not be given bail, otherwise it wll be misuse of bail, upto the time sweetwill of the accused, as he knows very well, that he will be convicted as soon as trial is complete.
5. Proceeding u/Section 446 Crpc should be started against surety at once.