thebmaamba (junior) 22 December 2010

cheque compounding-amt. belongs to whom?

Hello,

According to SC judgement (Damodar Prabhu's case)-the corresponding compounding (10,15,20 %) is to be deposited with legal services authority. My Q:

1.This amount belongs to the complainant? If yes, when and how the complainant is supposed to get it?

2.If answer to above question is yes, why has the SC laid down such a convoluted procedure- why not give directly the cheque amount plus above compounding amount to the complainant?

Thanks

Reply Follow

11 Replies

Amit Minocha (Lawyer) 22 December 2010

Dear Mr Edward,

The complainant has to file an application under section 357 CRPC seeking compensation from the amount from the Court only then he would be eligible to get anything.

thebmaamba (junior) 23 December 2010

Thanks Amicha. Will read sec. 357 tomorrow in the office :) .

thebmaamba (junior) 23 December 2010

Sorry amit-for getting your name wrong.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 23 December 2010

The compunding charges are not for complainant but for runnning the legal aid forum.

penjuri venugopal (Advocate) 23 December 2010

the compounding amount did not belong to complaintant and it is for running legal servictes cell/authority. Generally fine amount meant for running legal aid centres

Advocate Bhartesh goyal (advocate) 23 December 2010

Mr.Shashikumar is right.

thebmaamba (junior) 24 December 2010

Thanks everybody. So no compensation for complainant :(

Suppose the complainant does not want to compound the case AFTER trial has started i.e. he is willing to compound only if the accused pays HIM extra (say Rs.3k for legal expenses in trial court). Can the court force the complainant to compound the case ( w/o the 3k)?

Suppose the accused has paid part payment to complainant and then delays paying the rest. Suppose court allows trial to go ahead. Can the court force the complainant to compound the case at a later date (with no extra payment to complainant?)

madhu mittal (director) 24 December 2010

Sir Edward, please have a look on this citation your problem may be solved.

MANU/MH/0936/2007

Equivalent Citation: 2008CriLJ3770, 2008(1)MhLj497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2006

Decided On: 25.10.2007

Appellants: Mr. Vishnu Bhat
Vs.
Respondent: Narayan R. Bandekar, Managing Director, Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines Pvt. Ltd., Rajaram Bandekar (Sirigao) Mines Pvt. Ltd. and Anant V. Sarmalkar

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (POWER OF DEFENSE IS IMMENSE ) 24 December 2010

Law can not force compromise , but once the accused comes forword the sytem will be in his favor.

thebmaamba (junior) 25 December 2010

Thanks shashikumar and madhu. Madhu, please do not call me sir.

B.R.MANIKANDAN (ADVOCATE) 25 December 2010

generaly criminal courts not an agents for collecting cheque amounts in 138 cases,to prevent the abuse of process S.C laid down that procedure.it may saves the court's golden hours.