Bench:
Honourable Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Parties:
Petitioner – Rajinder Kumar
Respondent – Pushpa Devi
SUBJECT
In the present case, the petitioner who has been convicted under Section 138 of rhe Negotiable Instrument Act willing to compound the case by depositing and extra amount of 10% of the compensation of awarded with the Court Registry. However, the respondent refuses to give her consent to compounding the case.
FACTS
- In this case, the petitioner had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and had been sentenced to 4 months of simple imprisonment and had been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5000. The petitioner challenged the judgement before the High Court.
- The petitioner expressed his willingness to compound the case and to show his bonafide intentions, he was permitted to deposit an extra amount of 5000, that is, 10% of the compensation amount, to the court registry.
- However, the respondent refused to consent to the compounding of the case.
- The petitioner argued that even is respondent does not consent, the court can, in the interest of justice, close to proceedings if the court believes that the responded has been adequately compensated.
- The complainant, on the other hand, contended that even though by virtue of section 147 offences under the Negotiable Instrument Act are compoundable, the requirement for the consent of the complainant cannot be washed away.
- The petitioner submitted that he was 52% disabled and was suffering from financial difficulties and therefore could not arrange the money to pay to the respondent.
- As soon as he arranged the money, he offered to pay 10% more than the compensation amount in the hope of setting the dispute amicably.
JUDGMENT ANALYSIS
- The High Court noted that in view of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court could, even in the absence of the consent of the complainant, compound the case.
- The High Court can exercise its inherent power only in the cases where it was satisfied that the complainant was adequately compensated.
- Section 138 on the Negotiable Instrument Act does not mandate the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment on the accused.
- The Court noted that the petitioners was 52% disabled and that the responded had been adequately compensated.
CONCLUSION
The Court thus ordered the compounding of the case.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
