Compounding under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires complainant consent; unilateral compounding and quashing were not available.

An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be compounded by the court without the complainant's consent. The analysis states that a prior compromise had already broken down and been rescinded, so unilateral compounding by the accused was not available. It further notes that the non-obstante clause in Section 147 does not displace the basic requirement of compounding under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On that basis, the refusal to compound was correct, and no separate ground was made out for quashing the complaint or the summoning orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be compounded by the Court without the consent of the complainant, and whether the complaint and summoning orders were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The compromise between the parties had already been held to have broken down and been rescinded, with liberty granted to both sides to prosecute their criminal proceedings. In that situation, the only question was whether compounding of the offence could still be ordered unilaterally by the accused. The Court held that the earlier decision in Damodar S. Prabhu did not decide the point of consent for compounding, whereas JIK Industries Limited laid down that the basic requirement of compounding under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not displaced merely because Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 contains a non-obstante clause. The later view in Meters and Instruments was not treated as overruling that binding position, and the principle of precedent required following the earlier decision of coordinate strength.

Conclusion: Compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could not be permitted without the complainant's consent, and the refusal to compound was correct. No separate basis was made out for quashing the complaint or the summoning orders.

Final Conclusion: The petitions failed and the accused were not entitled to compounding or quashing on the facts and law as determined.

Ratio Decidendi: An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be compounded by the Court in the absence of the complainant's consent, and a non-obstante clause in Section 147 does not eliminate that requirement.

---