Legal Blog: Compounding Cheque Bounce Cases: Guidelines

Legal Blog on the Social Networks


Thursday, September 16, 2010

Compounding Cheque Bounce Cases: Guidelines

Justice K.G. Balakrishnan
Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. has laid down guidelines for Courts while dealing with compounding offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The relevant extracts from the judgment are reproduced hereinbelow;

15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:


(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: 

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.

Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate’s Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.

16. We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney General’s suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious manner which causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheque. For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an installment basis to be repaid in equated monthly installments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly installment and upon the dishonor of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively.

17. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act. We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in relation to subject-matter where there was a legislative vacuum.


  1. Thankfulness too my father who told me concerning this weblog, this web site is
    actually amazing.

    My web blog; diet coke and mentos challenge

    1. ma thú.

      - Nhân loại đáng chết, ngươi mau đưa Thánh quả đưa cho ta.

      Thanh Bối Ma Ngưu nhìn thấy Thất biến Ma Linh quả xuất hiện ở trong tay Nhạc Thành, đột nhiên gào thét một tiếng, lập tức toàn thân tràn ngập một mảnh thanh mang điên dại công kích tới.

      Hắc Ma hùng cùng Tứ Sí Ma ưng, còn có bốn con Địa Ma lang cũng điên dại nhào tới.đồng tâm
      game mu
      cho thuê nhà trọ
      cho thuê phòng trọ
      nhac san cuc manh
      số điện thoại tư vấn pháp luật miễn phí
      văn phòng luật
      tổng đài tư vấn pháp luật
      dịch vụ thành lập công ty trọn gói
      chém gió

      - Đại trưởng lão, bây giờ nên làm gì, nếu không thì ta trả lại cho chúng ta.

      Nhạc Thành ra vẻ sợ hãi nói, nhưng trong lòng thì mỉm cười, đây chính là kết quả Nhạc Thành muốn thấy, hắn muốn những người khác cùng bảy thất giai ma thú liều chết lưỡng bại câu thương.

      - Ngươi đầu tiên thu lại, chúng cùng đối phó bảy con ma thú này.

      Đại trưởng nhãn tình hơi đổi, lập tức nhìn người của Cự Giải môn quát lớn:

      - Chúng ta cùng đối phó mấy con ma thú, ngoài bảo tàng ra, nếu không giết mấy con ma thú, bên trong bảo tàng chúng ta cũng không lấy được.

      - Hảo, bất quá đến lúc đó bảo tàng cùng Thất biến Ma Linh quả cũng chia đều


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
There was an error in this gadget