9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the complainant. It is thus well-neigh settled position that the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., are invocable when no other efficacious remedy is available to the party concerned and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute concerned. The High Court had clearly fallen in error in invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., as also the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act qua the respondent-accused. Hence, the impugned judgment to the extent it compounded the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act invoking the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act stands quashed and set aside. There is no point in restoring the proceedings and to permit their continuance before the trial Court - Appeal disposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Vimit Trehan, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR For the Respondent(s) Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Adv. Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Juyal, Adv. Mr. Veda Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Pathak, Adv. Simar Singh Sawhney, Adv. Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The core contention of the appellant is that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C., and in such circumstances, the application was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. Ergo, invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., coupled with those under Section 147, N.I. Act, the High Court ought not to have compounded the offence without the consent of the appellant. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that when the indisputable position is that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act, no palpable illegality could be attributed to the action in invoking the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C, coupled with the power under Section 147, N.I. Act to compound the offence. The said contention of the respondents was resisted by the learned counsel for the appellant contending that for compounding the offence, consent of the complainant is required. Sans consent from the complainant, the High Court was not justified in compounding of the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, it is further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Cr.P.C., or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, the provision for compounding every offence punishable under the N.I. Act, under Section 147, N.I. Act, is not a power available to a Court to exercise without the consent of the complainant. We will dilate on this aspect a little later. 10. Now, in the context of the rival contentions, it is worthwhile to note that by the combined exercise of powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., and Section 147, N.I. Act, the High Court, has actually compounded the offence, under Section 138, N.I. Act, despite the non-consent of the complainant/ appellant herein therefor. Contextually, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 102 (6) of the decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604), which reads thus: - Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (underl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 147, N.I. Act, at any stage of the proceedings. 14. As relates the requirement of consent for compounding offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, by invoking the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, it is to be noted that the question is no longer res integra. This Court in the decision in JIK Industries Ltd. Ors v. Amarlal V.Jumani Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 255] declined to accept the contention that in view of the non-obstante clause in Section 147, NI Act, which is a special statute, the requirement of consent of the person compounding the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, is not required. After extracting provision under Section 147, N.I. Act, this Court in JIK Industries Ltd. case (supra) observed and held in paragraph 58 and 59 thereof thus: - 58. Relying on the aforesaid non obstante clause in Section 147 of the NI Act, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Damodar [(2010) 5 SCC 663], held that in view of non obstante clause in Section 147 of the NI Act, which is a special statute, the requirement of consent of the person compounding in Section 320 of the Code is not required in the case of compounding of an offence unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arty. Therefore, the two cannot be equated. 17. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that we held that the question whether the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded invoking the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, without consent of the complainant concerned, is no longer res integra. In short, the position is that an offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded under Section 147 thereof, only with the consent of the complainant concerned . In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein despite the absence of the consent of the appellant-complainant compounded the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, on the ground that the appellant was equitably compensated, could not be sustained. 18. In the context of the issues involved another aspect of the matter also requires consideration. The decision in Raj Reddy Kallem s case (supra), also stands on a similar footing inasmuch as the complainant therein was duly compensated by the accused but the complainant did not agree for compounding the offence. After observing that, Courts could not compel the complainant to give consent for compounding the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment is not subject to further appeal and other courts. One of the main reasons for disclosing and discussing the grounds in support of a judgment is to enable a higher court to examine the same in case of a challenge. It is, of course, desirable to assign reasons for every order or judgment, but the requirement is not imperative in the case of this Court. It is, therefore, futile to suggest that if this Court has issued an order which apparently seems to be similar to the impugned order, the High Court can also do so. There is still another reason why the High Court cannot be equated with this Court. The Constitution has, by Article 142, empowered the Supreme Court to make such orders as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it , which authority the High Court does not enjoy. The jurisdiction of the High Court, while dealing with a writ petition, is circumscribed by the limitations discussed and declared by the judicial decisions, and it cannot transgress the limits on the basis of whims or subjective sense of justice varying from Judge to Judge. 7. It is true that the High Court is entitled to exercise its judicial discretion in deciding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
