LexA.S. PHARMA PVT. LTD. versus NAYATI MEDICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1476 : 2024 INSC 690 A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 3051-3052 of 2024) 23 July 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ.] Issue for Consideration High Court whether justified in exercising its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C and the power under Section 147, N.I. Act, 1881 to compound the offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, despite the non-consent of the complainant-appellant. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 147 – Scope – Trial Court dismissed the application for compounding the offence u/s.138, N.I. Act filed u/s.320 Cr.P.C. – High Court despite the absence of the consent of the appellant-complainant compounded the offence u/s.138, N.I. Act qua the respondent-accused, exercising its inherent power u/s.482 Cr.P.C. and the power u/s.147, N.I. Act, on the ground that the appellant was equitably compensated – Sustainability: Held: Cannot be sustained, set aside to that extent – s.482, Cr.P.C. and s.147, N.I. Act are different and distinct – s.482, Cr.P.C. is the inherent power of High Court exercisable even suo motu to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice – However, the provision for compounding every offence punishable under the N.I. Act, u/s.147, N.I. Act, is not a power available to a Court to exercise without the consent of the complainant – Inherent powers u/s.482, Cr.P.C. are invocable when no other efficacious remedy is available to the party concerned and not where a specific remedy is provided by the statute concerned – Power u/s.482, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked ignoring the factor which is sine qua non for the exercise of power to compound the offence(s) under N.I. Act viz., the consent of the complainant – An offence u/s.138, N.I. Act could be compounded u/s.147 only with the consent of the complainant [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1477 A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. concerned – In view of the peculiar facts w.r.t the deposit of the amount payable under the impugned judgment and the readiness of the respondent-accused to effect the payment and to settle the matter, there is no point in restoring the proceedings and continue them before the trial Court though the impugned judgment has been set aside – Hence, despite the lack of consent from the appellant, complaint and all the proceedings emerging therefrom quashed exercising power u/Article 142 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 11, 17, 19, 21] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.138, 147 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Exercise of power u/Article 142 by the Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem’s case to quash the proceeding pending u/s.138, N.I. Act – High Courts quashing proceeding u/s.138, N.I. Act on the similar lines – Impermissibility: Held: Supreme Court in Raj Reddy Kallem’s case took note of the fact that the accused therein had compensated the complainant and deposited the additional amount as ordered – It was in view of such peculiar factual situation obtained therein that the Supreme Court invoked the power u/Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceeding pending against the appellant-accused therein u/s.138, N.I. Act, despite the non-consent of the complainant- respondent – However, this cannot be a reason for ‘compounding’ an offence u/s.138, N.I. Act, invoking the power u/s.482, Cr.P.C. and the power u/s.147, N.I. Act, in the absence of consent of the complainant concerned – The fact that Supreme Court quashed the proceedings u/s.138, N.I. Act, invoking the power u/Article 142 can be no reason at all for High Courts to pass an order quashing proceeding u/s.138, N.I. Act, on the similar lines as the power u/ Article 142 of the Constitution of India is available only to the Supreme Court of India. [Para 18] Case Law Cited Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008] 9 SCR 943 : (2008) 8 SCC 781; Arvind Barsaul (Dr.) v. State of M.P. (2008) 5 SCC 794; Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. [2010] 5 SCR 678 : (2010) 5 SCC 663; K.M. Ibrahim v. K.P. Mohammed & Anr. [2009] 15 SCR 1300 : (2010) 1 SCC 798; O.P. Dholakia v. State 1478 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports of Haryana & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 762; JIK Industries Ltd. & Ors v. Amarlal V
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.