R. RAJESHWARI versus H.N. JAGADISH .

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1065 · Decided: 05-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1065 
R. RAJESHWARI 
v. 
H.N. JAGADISH . 
(Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2008) 
MARCH 5, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 - ss.138 and 147 -
Dishonour of cheque -
Conviction - Before High Court, 
counsels expressed intention to compromise - Order of High c 
Court iii terms of compromise - Application by complainant 
for recalling the order on premise that she had rejected the 
proposal made by her lawyer and had instructed him to argue 
on merits - Maintainability of - Held: Not maintainable as 
there was no material to show that consent terms filed by 0 
counsel were without instruction from complainant - Also no 
complaint was made by her against lawyer nor was he 
impleaded as party- In view of specific bar created under s.362 
Cr.PC., ordinarily exercise of jurisdiction under s. 482 Cr.PC. 
would be unwarranted - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
ss.320, 362 and 482 -Advocates - Compromise - Review. 
E 
Compromise/Settlement - Binding effect of - Litigant 
authorizing the Advocate to enter into settlement - Held: The 
settlement arrived at is binding on the parties - Plea of 
. -.. 
complainant that order of trial court was to pay Rs. 1. 75 lacs to 
F 
her and therefore matter could not be settled for Rs. 1. 05 lacs, 
not tenable as such settlement was permissible in law and not 
violative of public policy and not otherwise inequitable - Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.320 -Advocates - Equity 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.362-'- Review:---
G 
Scope of 
The appellant-complainant filed complaint petition 
against respondent under s.138 of Negotiable Instruments 
'. 
1065 
H 
1066 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 
A Act, 1881 on the allegation of dishonour of cheque 
amounting Rs. 1 lac. The Magistrate found the respondent-
accused guilty for commission of offence punishable 
under s.138 and sentenced him to undergo simple 
imprisonment for one month and to pay Rs.2 lacs and in 
B default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The 
Magistrate also directed that out of the said amount of 
compensation, a sum of Rs.1.75 lac would be paid to the 
appellant. Sessions Judge affirmed the order of 
Magistrate. Respondent filed revision before the High 
c Court. The counsels for the parties expressed their 
intention to settle the matter. Accordingly parties entered 
into a compromise. A compromise petition was filed in 
terms of s.147, wherein the respondent agreed to pay 
Rs.25000 in addition to the amount of Rs.75,000 already 
0 deposited in full and final settlement. 
On 5.9.2005, the High Court however in the light of 
the said application and taking into consideration that sum · 
of Rs. 75,000 was already deposited directed to pay a 
further sum of Rs. 30,000 to the appellant and further to 
E pay a fine of Rs.5000 to State. The High Court also 
observed that after the impugned order was passed,· 
Rs.30,000 was paid to the complainant and same was 
reported by her counsel. 
Appellant moved an application for recalling the order 
F dated 5.9.2005 on the premise that proposal made by her 
lawyer was expressly rejected by her and that he was 
instructed to argue on merits. 
On 19.12.2005, the High Court noted that the appellant 
G refused to receive the amount of Rs.30,000/- on the 
ground that it was meagre. As the appellant refused to 
receive the amount of Rs.30,000/-, her counsel was 
directed to pay the amount back to the accused. The 
accused who was present in person reported receipt of 
the amount of Rs.30,000/- from the counsel. The accused 
H 
... 
R. RAJESHWARI v. H.N. JAGADISH 
1067 
was directed to deposit the said amount in Court. A 
However, by order dated 27.1.2006, the said application 
was rejected in view of provisions of s.362 Cr.P.C. 
In appeal to this Court, complainant-appellant 
contended that keeping in view the provisions contained B 
in s.4 read with s.320 Cr.P.C., it was evident that no terms 
;. 
of settlement could have been filed before the High Court 
as express instructions issued in that behalf were not 
given by the appellant to the lawyer; that the conduct of 
the lawyer as also the subsequent events would c 
categorically show that the said consent terms were filed 
by the counsel without any instructions from the 
appellant; and that when a fraud of this nature is practiced 
upon the court, the court is not denuded of its power to 
recall its order despite the bar contained in s.362 Cr.P.C. 
Di
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.