Calcutta High Court: Proceedings Under NI Act Cannot be Combined at Revision Stage without Plaintiff’s Consent
Calcutta High Court: Proceedings Under NI Act Cannot be Combined at Revision Stage without Plaintiff’s Consent
States that it violates Section 320 of CrPC
The Calcutta High Court, while dismissing two criminal revisions, held that offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be compounded without the complainant’s consent.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta stated, “The prayer of compromise at the stage of criminal revision before this high court is not possible without the consent of the complainant. Nothing prevented the petitioner from making the proposal before the magistrate or the appellate court. However, the law of the land is well established that compounding cannot be held violating the principle enumerated in Section 320 of the CrPC. Thus, offences as proved against the petitioner cannot be compounded.”
The opposite party had submitted a written complaint to the Judicial Magistrate, Howrah under Section 138, accusing the petitioner of offences and for corresponding his compensation and sentencing.
The petitioner was found guilty of offences as accused by both the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, and was, therefore, sentenced.
Convicted under Section 138, the petitioner underwent punishment. He was confined till the rising of the court and a compensation of Rs. 8 lakh was imposed upon him.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the matter could be compounded at the present stage and that the petitioner was ready to deposit a cheque for the claimed amount, along with 15 percent costs to the opposite party.
Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Damodar S Prabhu (2010) case, the counsel argued that the high court had the power to compound offences under Section 138, and the procedure was well settled.
Whereas the advocate appearing for the opposite party insisted that without the consent of the complainant, at no stage the proceedings could be compounded.
Thus, the bench accepted the submissions advanced by the opposite party. It held that by not taking the complainant's consent, compounding could not be held, as it violated Section 320 of the CrPC principle.
