Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis of an amicable settlement between the parties, and whether compounding could be permitted on payment of 15% of the cheque amount.
Analysis: The parties had settled the dispute after conviction, and the complainant had no objection to quashing of the conviction. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable under Section 147 of that Act. The Court applied the guideline that when compounding is sought before the High Court at a later stage, the accused may be required to pay 15% of the cheque amount as costs to the Legal Services Authority. In these circumstances, the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was invoked to bring the dispute to a quietus.
Conclusion: The conviction was quashed and set aside, and the application for compounding was allowed subject to deposit of 15% of the cheque amount with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a cheque dishonour conviction has been amicably settled and the offence is compoundable, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to quash the conviction and permit compounding, subject to payment of the prescribed costs.