Lawtext - Where Words Transform into Power!

High Court Bombay High Court

Revisional Jurisdiction and Compounding Offences Under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Bombay High Court defines the scope of revisional powers and compounding provisions in cheque dishonor cases.

by Admin

CASE NOTE & SUMMARY

Legal Issue 1: Whether the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. can accept consent terms and allow compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Legal Principle: Section 147 of the N.I. Act provides that all offences under the Act are compoundable, allowing flexibility to settle disputes even post-conviction, subject to the High Court’s discretion in revisional proceedings.

The High Court holds that it can accept consent terms for compounding offences under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., balancing procedural requirements and justice.

Introduction (Paras 1-5):

The judgment involves multiple criminal revision applications arising from convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicants seek to compound the offences post-conviction by filing consent terms.

Revisional Powers (Paras 6-10):

Discusses the scope of revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C. and whether these powers can accommodate compounding of offences after conviction.

Relevant Statutory Provisions (Paras 11-15):

Explores the interplay of Sections 397, 401, and 482 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the non-obstante clause in Section 147 that overrides procedural restrictions under the Cr.P.C.

Case Precedents (Paras 16-20):

Analyzes judgments from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, particularly the cases of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

Legal and Social Context (Paras 21-25):

Examines the importance of facilitating settlements in cheque dishonor cases to ensure justice and decongest the judiciary.

Final Observations (Paras 26-30):

Highlights the Court’s responsibility to ensure that the compromise is genuine and not coercive, recommending token costs in cases of delayed settlement.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:

Section 138: Dishonor of cheque.

Section 147: Offences to be compoundable.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Section 397: Revisional powers of the High Court and Sessions Court.

Section 401: High Court’s powers in revision.

Section 482: Inherent powers of the High Court.

Section 320: Compounding of offences.

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Reasoning):

The High Court affirmed its discretionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. to accept consent terms in cheque dishonor cases, supported by Section 147 of the N.I. Act. It recognized that the primary objective of the N.I. Act is compensatory rather than punitive, allowing for post-conviction settlements in the interest of justice.

Subjects:

Negotiable Instruments Act, Revisional Jurisdiction, Compounding of Offences

Cheque Dishonor, Section 138 N.I. Act, Revisional Powers, High Court, Consent Terms, Compounding Offence, Judicial Discretion

Citation: 2024 LawText (BOM) (12) 2002

Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 373 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 376 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 510 OF 2017 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 373 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 369 OF 2023 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 625 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2007 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3830 OF 2024 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 152 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1543 OF 2003 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1344 OF 2015 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1543 OF 2003 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 413 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 565 OF 2016 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 38 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 474 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 475 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 156 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2015 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 380 OF 2002 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 585 OF 2002

Date of Decision: 2024-12-20

Case Title: M/s. AFX+Q Engineers and Anr. Versus M/s. Nikita Udyog and Anr.

Before Judge: MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

Advocate(s): • Ms. Rutuja S. Gholap, Advocate i/by Ms. Archana P. Gaikwad for Applicant; Mr. Gandhar Raikar a/w. Ms. Iyanaha Parbhoo, Ms. Anaaya Dalvie, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Revn. No.373 of 2016, Revn. No.374 of 2016, Revn. No.375 of 2016 and Revn. No.376 of 2016 and CP No.510 of 2017. • Mr. Akshay Bankapur, Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Saurabh K. Raut, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Revn. No.369 of 2023. • Mr. Mukesh Pabari a/w. Ms. Sushila Gupta, Advocates for Applicant; Mr. Kishor K. Malpathak, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in Revn. No.625 of 2015. • Ms. Namrata Waghole, Advocate for Applicant; Ms. Shraddha Pawar, Advocate i/by Mr. Dilip Bodake for Respondent No.2 in Revn. No.152 of 2007. • Ms. Hutoxi Tavadia a/w. Mr. Himanshu Kode, Advocates for Applicant in Revn. No. 38 of 2007; Mr. Nusrat Shah a/w. Ms. Ema Almeida, Mr. Kevin Gala, Ms. Archana Jha and Ms. Sayali Ramugade, Advocates i/by Naazish Shah for Appellant in Appeal No.1543 of 2003 and Respondent No.2 in Revn. No.38 of 2007. • Mr. Shekhar A. Ingawale, Advocate for Applicants in Revn.No.474 of 2007 and 475 of 2007. • Mr. V.S. Tadake a/w. Mr. Vinay D. Borwankar, Advocates for Applicant; Mr. Shantanu Kadam, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Revn. Nos.156 of 2015 and 158 of 2015. • Mr. S.R. More, Advocate for Applicant in Revn. No.380 of 2002. • Ms. Maitryee Garade a/w. Mr. Vinayak Pandit, Advocates i/by Mr. Ajinkya Udane for Applicant and Mr. Saurabh C. Nagarsheh, Advocate for Respondent in Revn. No.585 of 2002. • Dr. Dhanalakshmi Krishnaiyer, APP for the State in all matters. • Mr. Faiz Merchant, Amicus Curiae a/w. Mr. Faizal F. Shaikh, Advocate appointed by the Court.

Appellant: M/s. AFX+Q Engineers and Anr.

Respondent: M/s. Nikita Udyog and Anr.