S.138 NI Act: When a complainant is duly compensated, his consent is not necessary for compounding case: Himachal Pradesh High Court

S.138 NI Act: When a complainant is duly compensated, his consent is not necessary for compounding case: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that it can compound a case registered under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), 1881 even in absence of consent of the complainant, who is duly compensated.

The bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed this while hearing the petitioner's plea challenging the order of the Sessions Court.

The court had upheld the judgment of the judicial magistrate first class, Manali, wherein, the petitioner had been convicted under NI Act. He was sentenced to imprisonment of four months and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 to the respondent-complainant as compensation.

The petitioner submitted that the compensation amount had already been deposited with the high court registry. He had also made an additional payment of 10 percent of the compensation to compound the case.

The petitioner's counsel referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another versus the Kanchan Mehta case. He contended that in an NI Act case, even in absence of consent of the complainant, the court was satisfied that the complainant was duly compensated. Thus, the proceedings could be closed, and the accused discharged.

However, the counsel for the complainant communicated the refusal of his client's consent for compounding the case.

Justice Thakur observed that NI Act provisions coupled with the inherent power of the high court under Section 482 Cr.P.C sufficiently empowered the court to compound the case even in the absence of consent of the complainant where he was duly compensated.

Rejecting the complainant's argument that the judgment was not good in law, the bench stated that under NI Act it was not mandatory for the court to sentence the accused to imprisonment in all eventualities. It had the option to impose a sentence of imprisonment or fine or both.

It pointed out that the petitioner was 52% handicapped and had deposited 10% over and above the amount of compensation. Since the complainant was compensated adequately, a substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him was not necessary.