TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs accused to lower court for offense compounding under Section 138</h1> <h3>Nizamul Hasan Versus State of U.P. and Another</h3> Nizamul Hasan Versus State of U.P. and Another - TMI Issues:Application for quashing proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act - Compounding of offence - Settlement between parties.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the proceedings of Complaint No. 737 of 2020 and the summoning order dated 10.12.2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not involved in any offense as alleged in the complaint, suggesting that the matter raised by the opposite party was a civil dispute and could be resolved through a civil suit. It was emphasized that the offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable, and there was a possibility of amicably settling the dispute between the parties.The judge considered the submissions in light of a Supreme Court case, Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., which highlighted the compensatory aspect of the remedy over the punitive aspect concerning dishonour of cheques. The judgment emphasized the importance of prioritizing the compensatory aspect in such cases and raised concerns about delays in justice delivery due to parties choosing compounding as a last resort rather than at earlier stages of litigation. It was noted that if accused persons settle or compromise through compounding at a later stage, it could indicate merit in the complainant's case.As a result, the court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a month and move an application seeking compounding of the offense through compromise. The lower court was instructed to take necessary steps in accordance with the law and provide a maximum of four months for the accused to make efforts towards settlement. If the proceedings were not concluded through the application, the court could proceed against the accused as per the law. Coercive measures against the accused were prohibited for three months or until a decision was made based on the application, whichever came earlier. The order specified that no extension of time would be granted if the accused failed to comply within the stipulated period.The judgment clarified that the order was specific to the accused on whose behalf the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. With these directives and observations, the application was disposed of by the court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
