Settlement in 138 case

when you had mad the payment you should have done settlement agreement at the same time, now why do you worry you inform the court about settlement and court will take prudent decesion. or something else is which is worrying you.

In absence of other party you can try to satisfy the court that complaint has been duly compensated, the court in its discretion can discharge Ruling : Meters and Instruments P Ltd. vs Kanchan Mehta (2018) 1 SCC 560 or you can file a petition in High Court under sec 482 for quashing of FIR

My worry is that opposite side will say they are not withdrawing case, and conviction should be upheld.

Party is present in court and they are saying payment with conviction should be upheld.

AD MATHUR SIR AFTER METERS CASE SC CASES HAVE COME THAT WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANT CASES CAN NOT COMPROMISED.

Yes High court is alternative but it is costly.

 

Akternatively case can be contested on merit though risky.

METERS & INSTRUMENTS P. LTD.,

VS

KANCHAN MEHTA

JUDGEMENT:

PARAGRAPH 18 i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is “preponderance of probabilities”. The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/if-ready-to-pay-discharge-cheque-bounce-accused-supreme-court/articleshow/60980421.cms

 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160848531/

JUDGEMENT

PARAGRAPH 18

From the above discussion following aspects emerge:

i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong. Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is “preponderance of probabilities”. The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C. but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act. Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect.

ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court.

iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.

Please read following discusion to show that consent is essential.

 

Although the counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied upon the subsequent judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited's case (supra), however, this Court finds that this judgment, though has 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 CRM-M-17300 of 2017 (O&M) and connected cases -10- 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 point of time; which shall be a binding precedent on that point of law and not the subsequent judgment. In view of this pronunciation of the law by the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra),

this Court finds that; it has to follow the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of JIK Industries Limited's case (supra), which mandated the content of the complainant for compounding of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act.