TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 2081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no consent for compounding on the part of the complainant, therefore, it was impermissible for the trial Court to permit compounding merely on unilateral application moved by the petitioner/accused. Hence the trial Court has not committed any illegality by declining the application for compounding. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M-17300 of 2017 (O&M), CRM-M-17352 of 2017 (O&M) and CRM-M-17353 of 2017 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 20-9-2018 - MR. RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J. For the Appellant : M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate and Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate For the Respondent : Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate and Ishal Goyal, Advocate JUDGMENT Rajbir Sehrawat, J. 1. This order shall dispose of three petitions i.e. CRM-M-17300 of 2017-M/s. Anant Tools (Unit No. II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Anant Tools Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, CRM-M-17352 of 2017-M/s. Anant Tools (Unit No. II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Swatantar Kumar Chopra and CRM-M-17353 of 2017-M/s. Anant Tools (Unit No. II) Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Anant Tools Pvt. Ltd., Jalandhar, involving identical facts, but involving different cheques, and thus resulting in three different complaints and three different proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seeking anticipatory bail; in the FIR case lodged by the petitioner. However, thereafter, the complainant got dishonest and the complainant tried to get out of the agreement arrived at between the parties. Hence, the petitioners moved the abovesaid applications for compounding, by attaching the drafts for the amounts of cheque involved in the complaint; with further undertaking to pay anymore reasonable amount deemed appropriate by the Court. But these applications have been dismissed by the trial Court. It is further contended by the counsel that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (5) SCC 663-Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. and another judgment rendered in 2017 (4) RCR (Criminal) 476-M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another v. Kanchan Mehta, the consent of the complainant is not required for compounding the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), to contend that provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which requires consent of complainant, have been held to be non-applicable in case of compounding of the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es had finally broken down. As a result, this Court had passed order dated 05.08.2014, separately; in those three petitions, holding that the agreement between the parties is declared to be rescinded and the parties would be at liberty to prosecute their criminal proceedings against each other. Accordingly, it is contended by counsel for the respondent, that there was no more any compromise between the parties and this Court had granted liberty to the parties to prosecute their respective cases. Hence, the earlier compromise cannot be referred to by the petitioners for any purpose, for compounding of the offences or for quashing of the complaints. 8. As reply to the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra), has not been decided upon the issue involved in the present case, i.e., whether the compounding can be permitted by the Court even in absence of the consent of the complainant? It is contended by the counsel that consent of the complainant/injured in a criminal case is a sine qua non for compounding of the offences. While referring to the above said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruments Act, would have been allowed even without consent of the complainant. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application for compounding moved by the petitioners; for the lack of necessary consent from the complainant. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. 10. So far as judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, this Court finds substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents; that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) does not specifically deal with the issue of compounding of an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in absence of consent of the complainant. This judgment; primarily; proceeds on the assumption that, in the facts of that particular case, there was a consent between the parties. The dispute in that case was only regarding the stage at which the parties can; appropriately; be permitted to compound the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Although the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even under Section 147 of NI Act, the offence under Section 138 of Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in JIK Industries Limited's case (supra), however, has neither overruled the same nor has taken a detailed discussion regarding the proposition, which was specifically decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JIK Industries Limited's case (supra). Therefore, this Court is faced with a piquant situation, where there are two judgments from two co-ordinate Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same proposition, but are diametrically opposed to each other. However, this dilemma has also been put to peace by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another Constitutional Bench judgment, rendered in 2017 (4) RCR (Civil) 1009-National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has amply clarified that; in case the subsequent Bench of equal strength does not intend to follow the earlier Bench of the same strength; then the appropriate course for the subsequent Bench is only to refer the matter to the larger Bench. It has further been clarified that in case this recourse is not adopted by the subsequent Bench, then it is the judgment first in poi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
