Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court was hearing a group of criminal revision applications and connected matters, all arising from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The common question of law was whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could accept Consent Terms filed by the parties and consequently compound the offence, leading to acquittal of the accused. The court noted that in several matters, the parties had either settled the dispute and sought to file Consent Terms, or the complainant was unwilling to compound. The court heard submissions from the advocates, including Mr. Raikar for the respondent-complainant in some matters, and Dr. Krishnaiyer, the APP for the State. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, which had held that the trial court could discharge the accused even without the complainant's consent. However, the court noted that this decision was overruled by the Supreme Court in In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1197), which held that the trial court cannot discharge the accused without the complainant's consent. The court also considered Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana (2024) 8 SCC 588, which held that if the complainant is adequately compensated, the appeal cannot be kept pending. The court analyzed the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC, which confers upon the High Court all the powers of an appellate court. The court held that the revisional court can accept Consent Terms and compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act, provided the complainant is adequately compensated and consents. The court also clarified that the revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence in case of concurrent findings unless there is gross miscarriage of justice. The court directed that the matters be listed for further hearing on the specific facts of each case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Compounding of Offence - Section 397, 401 CrPC, 1973 - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The High Court in revision can accept consent terms and compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act, as Section 401 CrPC confers upon the revisional court all the powers of an appellate court, including the power to record compromise and acquit the accused, provided the complainant is adequately compensated and consents. (Paras 1-6)
B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Compounding of Offence - Consent Terms - Section 138 NI Act, 1881 - The decision in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560, which held that the trial court could discharge the accused even without complainant's consent, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1197). (Para 4)
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Powers - Scope - Section 401 CrPC, 1973 - The revisional court under Section 401 CrPC can exercise all powers of an appellate court, but cannot re-appreciate evidence in case of concurrent findings unless there is gross miscarriage of justice or total non-consideration of facts. (Para 6.1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is empowered to accept Consent Terms filed by the parties and consequently compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and acquit the accused.
Final Decision
The court, after hearing submissions, passed an order on 19.11.2024 and then on 20.12.2024, held that the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC read with Section 401 CrPC is empowered to accept Consent Terms and compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act, provided the complainant is adequately compensated and consents. The court directed that the matters be listed for further hearing on the specific facts.
Law Points
- Revisional court can accept consent terms and compound Section 138 NI Act offence
- Section 397 CrPC does not bar compounding in revision
- Section 401 CrPC confers appellate powers on revisional court
- Compounding requires complainant's consent
- M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta overruled on discharge without consent
- In Re Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act
- 1881
- Raj Reddy Kallem v. State of Haryana
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 2002
Criminal Revision Application No. 373 of 2016 with connected matters
Ms. Rutuja S. Gholap, Mr. Gandhar Raikar, Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Mr. Saurabh K. Raut, Mr. Mukesh Pabari, Ms. Sushila Gupta, Mr. Kishor K. Malpathak, Ms. Namrata Waghole, Ms. Shraddha Pawar, Ms. Hutoxi Tavadia, Mr. Himanshu Kode, Mr. Nusrat Shah, Ms. Ema Almeida, Mr. Kevin Gala, Ms. Archana Jha, Ms. Sayali Ramugade, Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale, Mr. V.S. Tadake, Mr. Vinay D. Borwankar, Mr. Shantanu Kadam, Mr. S.R. More, Ms. Maitryee Garade, Mr. Vinayak Pandit, Mr. Saurabh C. Nagarsheh, Dr. Dhanalakshmi Krishnaiyer, Mr. Faiz Merchant, Mr. Faizal F. Shaikh
M/s. AFX+Q Engineers and Anr. (in CRA 373/2016); Dhananjay Digambar Bhagwat (in CRA 369/2023); Rajaram Ganpat Narvekar (in CRA 625/2015); Kailas Bapurao Gadge (in CRA 152/2007); Sheela Jagdish Katira (in Appeal 1543/2003); Ramesh Jagdishchandra Obhan (in CRA 38/2007); Kashinath Pandurang Laykar and Anr. (in CRA 474/2007); Manik Krushna Jadhav and Anr. (in CRA 475/2007); Vinayak Achut Ghaisas (in CRA 156/2015 and 158/2015); Sushila Ramji Singh and Anr. (in CRA 380/2002); M/s. Shetkari Solvant (India) Ltd. (in CRA 585/2002)
M/s. Nikita Udyog and Anr. (in CRA 373/2016); Shree Santsena Maharaj Nagari Sahakari Pathasantha Maryadit Sinnar (in CRA 369/2023); Sudhir Dewon Sakpal (since deceased through legal heirs) Suhasini Sudhir Sakpal and Anr. (in CRA 625/2015); State of Maharashtra and Anr. (in CRA 152/2007); Ramesh Obhan and Anr. (in Appeal 1543/2003); The State of Maharashtra (in CRA 38/2007); The State of Maharashtra and Anr. (in CRA 474/2007 and 475/2007); State of Maharashtra and Anr. (in CRA 156/2015 and 158/2015); Vinodkumar D. Palrecha and Anr. (in CRA 380/2002); Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and Anr. (in CRA 585/2002)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision applications and appeals under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenging convictions or seeking compounding of offences.
Remedy Sought
The applicants (accused) sought acceptance of Consent Terms and compounding of the offence under Section 138 NI Act, leading to acquittal or discharge.
Filing Reason
The parties had settled the dispute after trial and appeal, and desired to file Consent Terms to put a quietus to the matter.
Previous Decisions
The matters had been decided by the trial court and appellate court, resulting in convictions. The revisions were filed against those concurrent findings.
Issues
Whether the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can accept Consent Terms and compound the offence under Section 138 NI Act.
Whether the decision in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta is good law after being overruled.
What is the scope of revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC in the context of compounding.
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Raikar submitted that the revisional court has limited scope and cannot re-appreciate evidence in concurrent findings unless there is gross miscarriage of justice.
Mr. Raikar submitted that Section 401 CrPC confers all powers of an appellate court on the revisional court, enabling it to accept consent terms.
The court noted that parties relied on M/s Meters and Instruments to argue that the court can close proceedings even without complainant's consent, but that decision has been overruled.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, read with Section 401 CrPC, has the power to accept Consent Terms and compound the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, leading to acquittal of the accused, provided the complainant is adequately compensated and consents. The decision in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta, which allowed discharge without complainant's consent, has been overruled.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether this Court would be empowered under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure to accept Consent Terms as a sequitur of which it would lead to compounding of the offence is required to be decided by this Court.
the decision in the case of M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited (1st supra) is not a good law in so as far it confers power on Trial Court to discharge the Accused.
the Revisional Court also enjoy power conferred upon the Appellate Court by virtue of powers contained in Section 401 of Cr.P.C.
Procedural History
The matters originated as complaints under Section 138 NI Act before the Magistrate. After trial, the accused were convicted. Appeals were filed before the Sessions Court, which confirmed the convictions. Thereafter, the accused filed criminal revision applications before the High Court. During the pendency of revisions, the parties settled the dispute and sought to file Consent Terms for compounding the offence. The High Court heard the matter on the common legal question and passed the present order.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401, 395-401
