Compounding in cheque dishonour cases is not an absolute right where the request is delayed and the complainant refuses consent.

Compounding under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an absolute entitlement and may be refused where the application is belated, the complainant objects, and the accused's conduct indicates delay or lack of bona fides. In cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138, the complaint had remained pending for years, the accused had earlier proposed repayment but failed to comply, and the compounding request was moved only after substantial progress in the matter. Those circumstances supported refusal of compounding, and no interference was warranted in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refusal to permit compounding of the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had remained pending for several years and the accused had earlier proposed a repayment schedule but failed to honour it. The application for compounding was moved at a belated stage after the matter had substantially progressed, and the complainant had expressly opposed compounding. The conduct of the accused, including repeated defaults and procedural delays, supported the finding that the application was not moved with genuine intent to settle the dispute. The principle that cheque dishonour matters are compensatory and settlement should ordinarily be encouraged does not create an indefeasible right to compounding where the complainant does not consent and the accused has acted without bona fides.

Conclusion: The refusal to compound was upheld and no interference was warranted in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Compounding of an offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not an absolute right and may be declined where the application is belated, the complainant objects, and the accused's conduct shows delay and lack of bona fides.

---