Cheque dishonour appeals: compounding guidelines may justify appellate reconsideration, with alternative reliefs available if the complainant withholds consent.

Cheque dishonour appeals may be reconsidered for compounding and allied relief where the cheque amount has been substantially deposited and the drawer offers further payment. The text states that the Supreme Court's compounding guidelines, as modified, permit compounding on payment of 7.5% of the cheque amount even at the Sessions Court or High Court appellate stage, and that where the complainant does not consent, the court may consider a plea of guilt, the powers corresponding to Section 255(2) and Section 255(3) of the CrPC or Section 278 of the BNSS, and relief under the Probation of Offenders Act. Applying those principles, the impugned orders were quashed and the applications restored for fresh appellate consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders rejecting the applications seeking acquittal in the cheque dishonour appeals were liable to be quashed and the applications restored for reconsideration in the light of the Supreme Court's guidelines on compounding and allied reliefs.

Analysis: The cheque amount in each matter had already been substantially deposited, and the petitioner offered to deposit additional sums. The governing principles in cheque dishonour matters were traced to the Supreme Court's guidelines on compounding, as modified, under which payment before the Sessions Court or High Court in appeal may justify compounding on payment of 7.5% of the cheque amount. The later guidance also recognised that, where the complainant does not consent to compounding, the court may consider the alternatives of permitting a plea of guilt, invoking the power corresponding to Section 255(2) and Section 255(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 278 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and extending the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. These directions were held applicable at the appellate stage as well.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the applications were restored to the appellate court for fresh consideration after deposit of the additional amount, with directions to decide them in the light of the Supreme Court's guidelines.

---