RAJ REDDY KALLEM versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 08-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 203 : 2024 INSC 347
Raj Reddy Kallem 
v. 
The State of Haryana & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2210 of 2024)
08 April 2024 
[A.S. Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant was convicted u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 
1881. Additionally, an FIR was also filed against the appellant u/
ss.406, 420, 120B, IPC. Parties agreed to compound the offence 
at the appellate stage and a settlement was reached. But, the 
appellant could not pay the amount within the time stipulated in 
the settlement agreement. However, eventually, entire amount was 
paid by him but, the complainant did not agree for compounding 
of the offence. Complainant, if can be compelled by the courts to 
give consent for compounding of the matter.
Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 – Compounding of 
offence – “Consent”:
Held: Even though the complainant was duly compensated by the 
accused yet the complainant does not agree for the compounding 
of the offence, the courts cannot compel the complainant to give 
‘consent’ for compounding of the matter – Mere repayment of the 
amount cannot mean that the appellant is absolved from the criminal 
liabilities u/s.138 – However, in the present case, the appellant 
was in jail for more than 1 year before being released on bail and 
had also compensated the complainant and in compliance of the 
order passed by this Court, he deposited an additional amount of 
Rs.10 lacs towards interest for delayed payment – Thus, there is 
no purpose now to keep the proceedings pending in appeal before 
the lower appellate court – Even though the complainant is unwilling 
to compound the case but, in the facts and circumstances of the 
present case the proceedings must come to an end – Quashing of 
a case is different from compounding – All the criminal proceedings 
qua appellant arising out of FIR No.35 of 2014 pending before 
Chief Judicial Magistrate, quashed – Since, criminal appeals filed 
by appellant against his conviction u/s.138 are also pending, said 
proceedings also quashed – Hence, all the pending criminal appeals 
204
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
against the appellant in the present matter quashed in exercise 
powers u/Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order 
of High Court as also the conviction and sentence awarded by 
trial court, set aside. [Paras 12,14]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 120B – Appellant took advance 
money from the complainant but failed to supply the machine 
– FIR against the appellant in addition to proceedings u/s.138, 
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Allegations that from the 
very beginning the appellant had the intention of cheating 
the complainant:
Held: As far as FIR case u/ss.406, 420, 120B is concerned, 
there is no merit in the allegations that the appellant from the 
very beginning had the intention of cheating the complainant – 
Though, the appellant failed to procure and supply the machine 
even after taking the advance money from the complainant but 
there is nothing on record to show that the appellant had any ill 
intention of cheating or defrauding the complainant from the very 
inception – Transaction between the parties was purely civil in 
nature which does not attract criminal law in any way. [Para 13]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – ss.147, 138 – Offences to 
be compoundable:
Held: As per s.147, all offences punishable under the Negotiable 
Instruments Act are compoundable – However, unlike s.320 of 
CrPC, the NI Act does not elaborate upon the manner in which 
offences should be compounded – In cases of s.138, the accused 
must try for compounding at the initial stages instead of the later 
stage, however, there is no bar to seek the compounding of the 
offence at later stages of criminal proceedings including after 
conviction, like the present case. [Para 12]
Case Law Cited
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 of Haryana & Anr. (2000) 1 SCC 762; 
JIK Industries Limited & Ors. v. Amarlal V. Jamuni & 
Anr. [2012] 3 SCR 114 : (2012) 3 SCC 255; Meters and 
Instruments Private Ltd. And Another. v. Kanchan Mehta 
[2017] 10 SCR 66 : (2018) 1 SCC 560 – referred to.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
205
Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr.
List of Acts
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution 
of India.
List of Keywords

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.