காசோலை மோசடி வழக்கில் சமரசம் பற்றிய முக்கிய தீர்ப்பு

மாற்றுமுறை ஆவணங்கள் சட்டத்தின் பிரிவு 147 - இன் படி    கீழ் காசோலை  மோசடி  குற்றத்தை இணக்கமாக அதாவது சமரசமாக (கம்பவுண்டிங்)  தீர்த்துக்கொள்ள முடியும். அவ்வாறே மேலமை நீதிமன்றங்கள் பலவும் பல வழக்குகளில் கூறியுள்ளன.

இந்நிலையில் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் அண்மையில் ஒரு வழக்கில் அவ்வாறு பிரிவு 147-இன் கீழ் காசோலை மோசடி குற்றத்தை சமரசமாக தீர்த்துக் கொள்ள சில  வழிகாட்டு நெறிகளை பகர்ந்துள்ளது.

அதாவது பிரிவு 147-இல் காசோலை மோசடி புகாரின் எந்த நிலையில் அக்குற்றத்தை சமரசம் செய்து கொள்வது உகந்ததாக இருக்கும், மேலும்  அதை புகார்தாரர் முன் வைக்கும் கோரிக்கையின் அடிப்படையில் செய்ய முடியுமா அல்லது நீதிமன்றத்தின் அனுமதி பெற்று செய்ய முடியுமா என்பது குறித்தோ வகுத்துரைக்கப்படவில்லை. எனவே இதற்காக

Damodar S. Prabhu ... Appellant (s)

Versus

Sayed Babalal H. ... Respondent (s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 964-966 OF 2010

[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6370-6372 of 2007]

என்ற வழக்கில் நமது உச்ச நீதிமன்றம்  சில வழிகாட்டு நெறிகளை வகுத்துள்ளது. அவை வருமாறு.

SC Guidelines on Sec 147 N.I Act:

Section 147 of the Act does not prescribe as to what stage is appropriate for compounding the offence and whether the same can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court.

1. When Summons issued an application for compounding at first or second hearing such an application compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

2. The accused make 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.

3. 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.

4. The 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.

Multiple cheques in same transaction: 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.