The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing the criminal revision, observed that a Magistrate can drop proceedings against an accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act if he offers a fair and acceptable amount, which, in the opinion of the court, is appropriate for duly compensating the complainant.
A Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Sharma passed this order while hearing a Criminal Revision filed by Smt Rani Gaur.
By means of the criminal revision, the revisionist has challenged an order dated 23.03.2023 passed by Session Judge, Meerut in criminal revision whereby the revisional court set aside the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the Additional Special, Meerut in criminal complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Partapur, District Meerut.
The facts of the case are that the revisionist filed a complaint on 11.08.2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, which is pending before the trial court; during the course of proceedings the accused filed a demand draft of Rs 11 lakhs and made a prayer before the trial court 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 lapse of 13 years; the Magistrate rejected the application of the accused on the ground that the complainant cannot be compelled to compound the matter; the accused challenged the aforesaid order by filing a revision; the revision came to be decided by the revisional court 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 and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs Kanchan Mehta: AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4594.
It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that the finding recorded by the revisional court is illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions of law; the accused, after lapse of about 14 years wants to get the matter compounded by giving the amount of the cheque with additional about 10% only; she has been suffering since 2019 and has been in dire need of money for domestic purposes; the accused is not entitled to any benefit in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal: (2010) 5 SCC 663 and in the light of the judgment of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs Kanchan Mehta (supra).
Citing certain circumstances relating to the present controversy, story, the background facts and civil suit between the two, it is argued on behalf of the revisionist that apprehending his imminent failure in both the cases, he sought to save himself by giving Rs 11 lakhs for the cheque amount of Rs 10 lakhs, after 13 years of suffering.
The Court noted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court followed the observation as given in Anant Tools (Unit No.II) Pvt Ltd And others versus M/s Anant Tools Pvt Ltd, Jalandhar, 2019(1) RCR (Criminal) 137, in which the court referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of JIK Industries Limited and others versus Amarlal vs Jumnai and another, 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 822, which mandated that the consent of the complainant for compounding the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is must.
“I studied both the judgments. The Supreme Court did not say that the requirement of consent for compounding may just be done away with. Instead of 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 absence of direct consent. The court is empowered to apply its discretion in terms of provisions of Section 258 CrPC.
It may be made clear that this aspect of the matter is distinct and separate from the compounding of the case where both the parties agree. The revisional court has remanded the matter to decide it afresh as per law laid down in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs Kanchan Mehta (supra).
By the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has emphasized that where an appropriate amount has been offered/ deposited, the trial court may consider to drop the proceeding. Definitely the objections, if any, in this regard shall be taken into consideration The court has not lost its power of discretion in such matters. In view of the above I do not find any cause for interference”, the Court observed while dismissing the criminal revision.