Skip to main content

Cheque Bounce case Lawyer in Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi


Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi


Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi


The Supreme Court has held once a complainant signs a compromise deed acknowledging receipt of the full settlement amount, the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be sustained. The Court set aside an order of the High Court which dismissed an application filed by the accused seeking alteration of his conviction based on the settlement arrived at with the complainant after the dismissal of his revision petition.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court said, “Once the complainant has signed the compromise deed accepting the amount in full and final settlement of the default sum the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot hold water, therefore, the concurrent conviction rendered by the Courts below has to be set-aside.” A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal concerning the compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matter reached the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed an application by the accused seeking modification of its revision order that had upheld his conviction. The application was based on a subsequent compromise deed, in which the complainant had accepted a payment as full and final settlement of the defaulted sum. The High Court had rejected the application, citing non-maintainability.

Setting aside the High Court's decision and acquitting the appellant-accused, the Court taking into account a beneficial provision of Section 147 of NI Act, which makes cheque dishonor offences a compoundable offence, observed that since the complainant had arrived at a compromise with appellant without any coercion and at his own will and voluntarily accepting the default sum in full and final settlement, then the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act would be of no use.

In support, the Court relied on M/s. Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel (2021), where it was observed that “Once parties voluntarily entered into such an agreement and agree to abide by the consequence of non-compliance of the settlement agreement, they cannot be allowed to reverse the effects of the agreement by pursuing both the original complaint and the subsequent complaint arising from such non-compliance.”

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. Cause Title: GIAN CHAND GARG VERSUS HARPAL SINGH & ANR.
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8050 of 2025)


Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509


Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
+91 85957 22509


Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi


Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer

Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi IndiaBest divorce lawyer

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi 

Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi 

Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Transfer petition case lawyer

NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer


Matrimonial dispute case lawyer

Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509 Address :  137 J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar Delhi, 110092 Contact Number 8595722509 Phone Number 8595722509 Mobile Number 8595722509 Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number  8595722509 Address :  137 J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar Delhi, 110092 Contact Number  8595722509 Phone Number  8595722509 Mobile Number  8595722509 Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number  8595722509 Address :  137 J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar Delhi, 110092 Contact Number  8595722509 Phone Number  8595722509 Mobile Number  8595722509 Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number  8595722509 Address :  137 J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar Delhi, 110092 Contact Number  8595722509 Phone Number  8595722509 Mobile Number  8595722509 Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number  8595722509 Address :  137 J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar Delhi, 110092 Contact Number  8595722509 Phone Number  8595722509 Mobile Number  8595722509 Best ...

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Best Divorce lawyer Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court Best divorce lawyer in East delhi Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Best divorce lawyer in Delhi Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi Best divorce lawyer in new delhi Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi Mutual consent divorce lawyer Best mutual divorce lawyer Maintenance case lawyer Domestic violence case lawyer

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Case Details:- Bronson Barthol Dias v. Central Adoption Resource Authority, Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2025, decided on 7-4-2025 Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioners having two biological children suffering from disabilities, wanted to adopt a third normal child, but their application was rejected, the Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ. opined that in complex and emotional mindset, the parents of the children with disabilities naturally would have an intense dedication, desire, and happiness to receive a normal child in adoption to balance their life and to have an experience to raise a normal child, which they were missing. The Court opined that it could never be the intention of the statutory mandate that a couple which already had disabled children could be barred from adopting a normal child. The Court thus directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ application in accordance with law and by applying the power of relaxation under R...