Legal provisions involved: Section 138 and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Judgement by: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bench/Judge: Justice Rakesh Kainthla

Facts 

The accused, Devi Ram, was facing a cheque bounce case under Section 138 NI Act. He deposited the compensation amount as ordered by the Trial Court and requested the court to close the case by treating it as compounded. However, the complainant refused to settle or give consent for compounding.

Key legal provisions 

• Section 138 and Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
• Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Issues raised 

Whether a court compounds a cheque bounce case only because the accused has deposited compensation, even when the complainant does not agree?

Arguments of the case 

The accused argued that paying compensation should be enough to compound the offence and that he should not be asked to pay compounding fees because of his financial condition. The complainant did not agree to settle.

Judgement 

The  Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a cheque bounce case cannot be compounded without the complainant’s consent. Depositing compensation alone does not give a right to force a compromise. The petition was dismissed.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.