Court Has Discretion To Drop NI Act Proceedings Sans Complainant’s Consent If Accused Offers Fair Amount as Compensation: Allahabad HC

The bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma observed thus while referring to the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in the case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta wherein the top Court had observed that an accused in a case under Section 138 of NI Act can be discharged even without the consent of the complainant if the Court is satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated.

“The Supreme Court did not say that the requirement of consent for compounding may just be done away with. Instead, widening the compensatory aspect of cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Apex Court has carved out a window in the existing scheme of things saying that the case can be disposed of without obtaining direct consent of the complainant under certain circumstances. The circumstances included offering an amount fair and acceptable which in the opinion of the court is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant. That is under certain circumstances the court can proceed in the absence of direct consent. The court is empowered to apply its discretion in terms of provisions of Section 258 CrPC,” the Court said.

The case in brief

Essentially, a complaint was filed by Revisionist/Rani Gaur in August 2009 against the Accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter is presently pending before the trial court.

Now, during the course of proceedings, the accused filed a demand draft of Rs. 11 lakhs in the court and made a prayer before it to direct the revisionist/complainant to compound the case.

The revisionist objected to compounding saying that she is not ready to settle the matter for Rs. 11 lakhs after a lapse of 13 years. The Magistrate concerned rejected the application of the accused on the ground that the complainant cannot be compelled to compound the matter.

Thereafter, the accused challenged the aforesaid order by filing a revision; the revision came to be decided by the revisional court (Sessions Judge, Meerut) whereby the impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to pass an appropriate order as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Meters (supra).

Challenging this very order of the Sessions Court, the revisionist moved the High Court wherein she contended that the accused, after a lapse of about 14 years, wants to get the matter compounded by giving the amount of the cheque with an additional about 10% only, which is unacceptable to her.

Court's order

At the outset, the Court pursued the order of the Supreme Court to note that the Top Court has carved out a window in the existing scheme of things saying that the case can be disposed of without obtaining direct consent of the complainant under certain circumstances.

The Court further added that the Court of Magistrate is very well empowered to apply its discretion in terms of provisions of Section 258 CrPC in such cases and that if it feels appropriate, it may drop the proceedings against the accused even if there is no direct consent of the complainant.

However, the bench did add that while exercising its power under Section 258 CrPC, the Magistrate has to take into account the objections, if any, in this regard. With this, the revision plea was dismissed.

Also read: S.138 NI Act | Complainant's Consent Not Necessary For Compounding Case When He Is Duly Compensated: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Appearances

Counsel for Revisionist: Abhitab Kumar Tiwari

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Archana Tyagi, Pankaj Kumar Tyagi

Case title - Rani Gaur vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166 [CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2047 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 166

Click Here To Read/Download Order