Discussion
In which judgment, under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that though compounding requires consent of both the parties, but even in absence of such consent, the Court can, in the interest of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, in its discretion, close the proceedings and discharge the accused:-
Answer: B
The judgment is Meters and Instruments Private Limited vs. Kanchan Mehta, AIR 2017 SC 4594.
In this 2017 decision on cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court held that although compounding ordinarily requires the consent of both parties, the court may, in the interest of justice, close the proceedings and discharge the accused where it is satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, even without the complainant's consent.
Damodar S. Prabhu (2010) laid down graded costs for compounding at different stages, and JIK Industries (2012) held that compounding under Section 147 still requires the complainant's consent. Prateek Jain (2014) also concerned the compounding of cheque cases, not discharge without the complainant's consent.
Post your comment
Please log in or register to post a comment.
Examination Categories
- SSC Exams
- Banking Exams
- Teaching Exams
- Civil Services Exams
- Railways Exams
- Engineering Recruitment Exams
- Defence Exams
- State Government Exams
- Police Exams
- Insurance Exams
- Nursing Exams
- Other Government Exams
- NRA CET
- PG Entrance Exams
- Campus Placement
- MBA Entrance Exams
- CUET and UG Entrance
- Judiciary Exams
- Regulatory Body Exams
- Software Development