RAJ REDDY KALLEM vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case explores the nuances of compounding offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its interplay with Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It deals with the appellant’s conviction under the NI Act for dishonor of cheques and the subsequent settlement efforts. The Supreme Court analyzed whether the complainant could be compelled to agree to compounding despite full payment. Highlighting Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings in light of justice, emphasizing the distinction between compounding and quashing. The judgment is significant for understanding the judicial approach to balancing statutory mandates and equitable considerations in cheque dishonor cases.

Keywords: Compounding of offence, Negotiable Instruments Act, Article 142, Intention of cheating, Quashing of proceedings.

B) CASE DETAILS

  • i) Judgment Cause Title: Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
  • ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2210 of 2024
  • iii) Judgment Date: April 8, 2024
  • iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
  • v) Quorum: Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
  • vi) Author: Not specified
  • vii) Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 203
  • viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
    • Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Sections 138, 147
    • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 406, 420, 120B
    • Constitution of India: Article 142
    • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
  • ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None explicitly mentioned
  • x) Law Subject: Criminal Law, Negotiable Instruments Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for issuing dishonored cheques to the complainant in lieu of a failed business transaction. Parallel allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of IPC were raised. The case reached the Supreme Court following various settlement attempts and appeals. The Court examined the necessity of the complainant’s consent for compounding offences under the NI Act and whether pending criminal proceedings could be quashed under Article 142.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

  • The appellant’s company failed to deliver a machine after accepting an advance of ₹1.55 crore from the complainant in 2012.
  • The appellant issued cheques for repayment, some of which were dishonored, leading to proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.
  • An FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC was also filed, alleging fraudulent intent.
  • A Lok Adalat settlement was reached in 2015, requiring the appellant to repay the entire amount within 16 months. However, the appellant defaulted, frustrating the settlement.
  • Over time, the appellant paid the full principal amount and an additional ₹10 lakh as interest.
  • Despite repayment, the complainant opposed compounding the case.
  • The appellant sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Article 142, invoking exceptional circumstances.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

  1. Can courts compel the complainant to consent to compounding an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act?
  2. Whether repayment absolves the accused from criminal liability under the NI Act.
  3. Can criminal proceedings under Sections 406, 420, and 120B IPC be sustained for a civil transaction?
  4. To what extent can the Supreme Court exercise its powers under Article 142 to quash criminal proceedings in such matters?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. The appellant argued that the entire amount of ₹1.55 crore and an additional ₹10 lakh had been paid, leaving no substantive ground for continuing proceedings.
  2. Reliance was placed on Section 147 of the NI Act, which makes offences under the Act compoundable.
  3. The appellant cited previous judgments, including Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663], advocating for compounding even at later stages.
  4. It was contended that Sections 406 and 420 IPC were inapplicable as the transaction was civil in nature, lacking fraudulent intent.
  5. Exceptional circumstances justified invoking Article 142 to quash proceedings and ensure complete justice.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

  1. The complainant opposed compounding, asserting her right to withhold consent as upheld in JIK Industries Ltd. v. Amarlal V. Jamuni [(2012) 3 SCC 255].
  2. It was argued that mere repayment did not erase the appellant’s criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.
  3. The FIR allegations under Sections 406 and 420 IPC suggested fraudulent intent, warranting criminal prosecution.
  4. The complainant highlighted the appellant’s repeated defaults and delays in fulfilling the settlement terms.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Penalizes cheque dishonor for insufficient funds.
  2. Section 147, NI Act: Declares offences under the Act as compoundable.
  3. Sections 406, 420, and 120B, IPC: Address criminal breach of trust, cheating, and conspiracy.
  4. Article 142, Constitution of India: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass decrees to ensure complete justice.
  5. Section 482, CrPC: Provides inherent powers to quash proceedings.

I) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

  1. Repayment does not automatically nullify criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.
  2. Courts cannot compel complainants to consent to compounding. However, quashing can be exercised independently under Article 142.
  3. The transaction lacked evidence of fraudulent intent, rendering Sections 406 and 420 IPC inapplicable.
  4. The Supreme Court quashed all criminal proceedings, noting the peculiar facts and appellant’s compliance with repayment obligations.

b. Obiter Dicta

  1. Compounding under the NI Act requires complainant consent, but courts may quash proceedings in the interest of justice.
  2. Judicial discretion must align with legislative intent, prioritizing compensatory over punitive aspects in cheque dishonor cases.

c. Guidelines

  1. Accused should seek compounding at the earliest stage.
  2. Exceptional circumstances may warrant quashing without consent, but these remain case-specific.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reflects judicial flexibility in resolving cheque dishonor cases, emphasizing equity and practical justice. It balances complainant rights with the broader interest of judicial efficiency. However, reliance on Article 142 underscores the need for legislative clarity on compounding procedures.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

  1. Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [(2010) 5 SCC 663]
  2. JIK Industries Ltd. v. Amarlal V. Jamuni [(2012) 3 SCC 255]
  3. K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed [(2010) 1 SCC 798]
  4. O.P. Dholakia v. State of Haryana [(2000) 1 SCC 762]

Important Statutes Referred

  1. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
  2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
  3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  4. Constitution of India
Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp