Skip to main content

Cheque bounce case can be settled at any stage: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held an accused in a cheque dishonour case can settle the issue with the complainant even outside the court at any stage prior to the execution of punishment.

"There is no legal bar to the compounding of such an offence, either during or even after disposal of an appeal filed either by the accused or by the complainant," Justice V K Jain said.

The court, which was to pronounce the quantum of sentence after finding a couple guilty under section 138 (cheque bounce case) of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, had to deal with the legal issue as to whether a convict can be allowed to settle the case at the eleventh hour of the judicial proceedings just to avoid the imminent penalty.

Referring to the relevant legal provision, the court said, "It would, thus, be seen that in view of the non obstante clause contained in the Section, the restrictions and limitations prescribed under CrPC with respect to compounding of offences would not be applicable as far as compounding of an offence punishable under the provisions of the aforesaid Act is concerned.

"Consequently, such an offence can be compounded at any stage before the sentence, if any, awarded to an accused under the provisions of the aforesaid Act is fully executed."

"Since, section 147 of the NI Act does not require permission of the court for compounding such an offence, no such permission is necessary and the parties therefore can enter into a compromise outside the court and then get the same recorded in the court at any point of time before the sentence is fully executed," it said

 Article referred: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-01-09/news/46030083_1_cheque-bounce-case-delhi-high-court-ni-act

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more