Post conviction of 138 ni
ASHOK MAHESHWARI
(Querist) 20 July 2015
This query is : Resolved
In case of dishonour of cheque, accused was convicted (6 month simple imprisonment and compensation of 20000/-) by trial court and now he filed an appeal in the session court. Accused himself is a lawyer and he want to pay/ deposit cheque amount in the court without my concern. Now my question is, I complainant do not want to compound/compromise , can accused without my concern and without my willingness make payment of cheque in the court and his conviction order get reversed? If he can do so then how can I oppose this?
Thanks for suggestions in advance...
P. Venu
(Expert) 21 July 2015
Your posting lacks clarity to suggest any opinion.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 21 July 2015
Session court may accept the appeal / the request of the opposite party on merits. Your lawyer should oppose the claim. If request is accepted, you may proceed for appeal.
ASHOK MAHESHWARI
(Querist) 21 July 2015
session court judge is compelling me (complainant) to compound (138 NI Act). I (complainant) is not ready to compromise. Is there any ruling favouring complainant?
Is it right on the part of the court to compel complainant to compound the offence? If I want to oppose than what should I do? and how should I act?
ADV-JEEVAN PATIL, MUMBAI
(Expert) 21 July 2015
1)U r fighting for lost cause n that too against lawyer. 2) session court asked him to pay the requisit amount n he is willing to pay. U cannot dictate court. Or u face trial n if failed go in further appeal. 3) Advise is that do not waste your time n money in fighting.3) We camnot change all wrong doers
Best course is to change ourselves. Hope u will note take this opinion otherwise but will tale right perspective.
sukanya (Joyce)
(Expert) 22 July 2015
jeevan patil advice is one way correct. hope u get full claim amt. close N I Act case n concentrate on civil litigation , use this as piece of evidence to prove his virtue.
ASHOK MAHESHWARI
(Querist) 22 July 2015
jeevan patil's advice is good, but I am having a civil litigation for the eviction of my property, where legally I am on a strong position, but trial court is not giving the decision, but only dates are givin. Since last 4-5 months (4 dates of court) opposite party, no one is attending the court, I along with my lawyer is going there but nothing is happening except dates.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 23 July 2015
Civil case is different to that of the pending appeal in the criminal 138 ni act case.
Your advocate should put pressure before the court if the court is not expediting the trial without any reason or change your lawyer.
ASHOK MAHESHWARI
(Querist) 24 July 2015
Kalaiselvan, Sir, thanks for your suggestion, but every one here is suggesting me to compromise, by taking the possession of ranted promise only, without considering legal dues (rent as per courts orders of Rs. 1.5 lac plus litigation expenditures), I am not interested at all for this settlement and I want to go legally.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 25 July 2015
What ever it is now it is the jurisdiction of the sessions U go for a compromise when the accused is ready to pay the cheque amount.
Presume that the sessions court confirms the judgement of the lower court,he can appeal in the HC.It will take 5 to 6 yrs to conclude in the HC,it can be dragged even more.
So my sincere advice is to go for a compromise.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 25 July 2015
In cheque cases only due to lousy defense there are convictions otherwise complainants and their advocates make many mistakes due to over confidence.
There are cases where even conviction confirmed up to HC level is reversed at APEX COURT.
So be wise and make compromise as all others are suggesting .
ASHOK MAHESHWARI
(Querist) 26 July 2015
It means law is far away from the reach of ordinary people. I have also filed Cr.Pc.340 read along with Cr.Pc 195(b)(1) along with sections 191,192,193,196 of IPC for perjury in response of false suit filed by opponent. I am ready to fight a long battle; would the justice be delivered to me after all?
