2024 (5) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner/accused, for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 30.08.2009 for discharging his sundry debts and family expenses. In spite of repeated demands made by the complainant, the accused did not pay the amount and the accused issued a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- towards full satisfaction of the amount and whereupon the said cheque is presented by the complainant for collection, the same is returned on the ground that „refer to the drawer‟ and closed the account‟. 3. After considering the material as well as evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Special Mobile Court, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 663, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that: "21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. xxx (c) Simi....