Compounding requires complainant consent; quashing and personal exemption were refused in cheque dishonour proceedings.

Complaints and summoning orders under the Negotiable Instruments Act were not quashed under Section 482 CrPC because the Court found no illegality, abuse of process, or miscarriage of justice in proceeding with the cases. Compounding under Section 147 NI Act could not be compelled when the complainant was unwilling, as compounding requires consent and is not mandatory merely because the accused offers payment. Refusal of personal exemption under Section 205 CrPC was also upheld because exemption from appearance is discretionary and the asserted grounds were insufficient. All connected petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaints and summoning orders were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the dismissal of the application for compounding under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was illegal when the complainant was unwilling to compound. (iii) Whether the refusal of personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the complaints and summoning orders were liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitions sought quashing of the complaints and summoning orders on the ground that the accused had offered payment and had attempted settlement. The Court found no illegality in the proceedings and held that the filing of the complaints did not amount to abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the dismissal of the application for compounding under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was illegal when the complainant was unwilling to compound.

Analysis: The Court held that compounding cannot be forced upon the complainant merely because the accused is willing to deposit the cheque amount. Relying on the governing legal position, it accepted that compounding requires the complainant's consent and that Section 147 permits compounding but does not compel it.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit compounding was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the refusal of personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable.

Analysis: The Court accepted that exemption from personal appearance lies in judicial discretion depending on the facts of the case. It found the ground asserted for exemption insufficient and noted that the accused was required to appear only on fixed dates, not on every date.

Conclusion: The order declining personal exemption was sustained.

Final Conclusion: No ground was found to interfere with the impugned orders, and all connected petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Compounding of an offence cannot be imposed on a complainant without consent, and discretionary relief from personal appearance must rest on sufficient grounds.

---