Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1168 (RAJ)

Kavita v. State of Rajasthan

2015-06-02

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the instant miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 8.5.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in complaint case No. 1629/2012 whereby the application filed by the petitioner accused for being permitted to deposit the cheque amount and to direct dropping of the proceedings of the complaint treating the offence to be compounded was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is facing trial in the said Court for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. She moved an application praying that she is ready to deposit the cheque amount in the Court and thus by accepting the said offer, the complainant be directed to compound the offence. The trial court rejected the said application by the impugned order. Hence, this misc. Petition. 3. I have heard Mr. B.K. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material available on record. 4. The controversy raised in the instant misc. Petition is no more res integra in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of J.I.K. Industries Limited v. Amarlal V. Jumani reported in AIR 2012 SC 1079 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that a complainant cannot be forced to compromise the matter. 5. The trial court in its order observed that the complainant is not prepared to accept the cheque amount for the purpose of compounding the offence. It is understood that compounding is voluntary act and a person aggrieved cannot be forced to compound a criminal case initiated by him/her. If the complainant disagrees with the offer of the cheque amount and refuses to compound the offence, the Court has no powers to mandate the complainant to do so. 6. The complainant apart from claiming payment of twice the cheque amount in a complaint under Section 138 Cr.P.C. also has a right to seek appropriate sentence against the accused. 7. As a consequence of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court was justified in dismissing the application preferred by the accused for terminating the proceedings of the complaint by directing the complainant to compromise the case. 8. The misc. petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.Stay petition also stands disposed of.