NI Act | Court Cannot Compel Complainant To Give Consent U/S 482 CrPC For Compounding Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

The Court noted that the dispute between the parties is of over 1.73 crores which was outstanding as on March 03, 2016.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari said, "...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."

The Court was hearing a plea under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the order of a Trial Court wherein the Court had dismissed the petitioners' application filed under Section 147 of the NI Act, thereby seeking compounding of the offence.

The trial launched against the petitioners culminated in their conviction, whereupon, the trial Court convicted and held the petitioners guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000 each, i.e. the amount of cheque in question, out of which Rs.5,000, each was directed to be paid as fine and the remaining amount was directed to be treated as compensation to the complainant.

Being aggrieved by the verdict, the petitioners preferred a statutory appeal before the first appellate Court, which was pending consideration.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the  Supreme Court has, in “JIK Industries Limited & Others v. Amarlal V. Jamuni & Another”, (2012) held that the consent is mandatory for compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

Justice Tiwari referred to the ruling of Apex Court in Raj Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana, wherein the Supreme Court held that "the Courts cannot compel the complainant in a cheque dishonour case to give consent for the compounding of the complaint merely because the accused has compensated the complainant."

The bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia of the Supreme Court had observed :

"...even though the complainant has been duly compensated by the accused yet the complainant does not agree for the compounding of the offence, the courts cannot compel the complainant to give 'consent' for compounding of the matter. It is also true that mere repayment of the amount cannot mean that the appellant is absolved from the criminal liabilities under Section 138 of the NI Act."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Case: SURINDER KUMAR BINDAL AND ANOTHER v. SATINDER NATH RADHEY SHYAM AND SONS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 212

Click here to read/download the order