9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners, which is, incidentally, having a little bit similar name, i.e. M/s. Anant Tools (Unit No. II) Pvt. Limited, and its Directors. The allegations in the complaint are that earlier the complainant and the accused had common business and were initially running a joint business. However, thereafter, the business was separated by the two. As a result, the assets, rights and liabilities were divided between the parties. An amount of Rs. 18,52,253/- was required to be paid by the accused No. 1 to the complainant, as a result of the above said settlement, as involved in one complaint. There are other amounts also, which are involved in two other complaints. For discharge of the above said liability, the petitioners had issued cheque dated 08.01.2009 for the above said amount of Rs. 18,52,253/-. For the amounts involved in other complaints, two other cheques were also issued. However, on being presented, the cheques were dishonored by the Bank. Resultantly, notices were issued to the petitioners/accused on account of dishonor of all the three cheques, as involved in three complaints. Despite the notices, the amounts were not paid by the petitioners. This resulted into complaints being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Instruments Private Limited's case (supra), counsel has submitted that this judgment has specifically dealt with the issue of consent of the complainant; for the purpose of compounding; and has held that the Court can permit compounding of the offence irrespective of or in absence of the consent of the complainant; as well. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that pursuant to the earlier agreement arrived at between the parties, the petitioners had already given their consent for quashing of the FIR No. 31 dated 06.02.2010 registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPCat Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar, which was lodged against the complainant. However, now the complainant has resiled from his part of the compromise. Through this modality, the complainant has tried to take the undue advantage of the Court proceedings. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent has argued that; it is not disputed that the complainant had filed the three complaints prior in time. Thereafter, as a counter blast, the present petitioners had also got lodged the above said FIR against the complainant in the year 2010. At the stage of seek ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t; which uses a non-obstante clause; and has considered its effect vis-a-vis Section 320 of Cr.P.C., however, this judgment has not specifically explored the applicability of Section 320 of Cr.P.C. qua the consent of the complainant; in case of compounding of offence under Section 138 of NI Act. It is further contended by the counsel that this aspect was specifically considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 822, JIK Industries Limited and Others v. Amarlal V. Jumani and Another. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically explained that; although in the earlier judgment rendered in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), the question of exclusion of Section 320 Cr.P.C. in cases relating to compounding of offences under Section 138 of NI Act, due to Section 147 of NI Act, has been considered, yet the applicability of Section 320 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of consent of the compounding party, has not been decided by the Court. It is contended by the counsel that the judgment in JIK Industries Limited's case (supra) has considered the scope of the non-obstante clause used in Section 147 of NI Act in great details; and has u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for compounding; with reference to the stage of proceedings; at which the compounding has been sought by the party. Beyond that, this judgment has no significance; so far as the question of consent of the complainant for compounding is concerned. 11. The above said judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), has specifically been considered by the subsequent Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of JIK Industries Limited's (supra). While explaining the scope of consideration in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JIK Industries Limited's (supra), has held that; this judgment cannot be interpreted to mean that applicability of Section 320 Cr.P.C. stands altogether obliterated due to use of non-obstante clause in Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court in JIK Industries Limited's case (supra) also held that the basic ingredients of Section 320 Cr.P.C. do not stand excluded merely because of uses of non-obstante clause in Section 147. It has been further held that the use of the non-obstante clause in a statute has to be considered with reference to the context in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
