LAW FOR ALL

Sec.138 N.I.Act - Sec.147 of N.I.Act - compromise before Lokadalat - in compromises court has got jurisdiction to relax the guidelines mentioned in Damodar S. Prabhu case in suitable cases - rejected as 15% costs not deposited as per Apex court judgement held in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 - High court confirmed the same - Apex court held that since Section 147 of the Act did not carry any guidance on how to proceed with compounding of the offences under the Act and Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not be followed in strict sense in respect of offences pertaining to Section 138 of the Act, there was a legislative vacuum which prompted the Court to frame those guidelines to achieve the following objectives: (i) to discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition of offences in cases involving Section 138 of the Act; (ii) it would result in encouraging compounding at an early stage of litigation saving valuable time of the Court which is spent on the trial of such cases; and (iii) even though imposition of costs by the competent Court is a matter of discretion, the scale of cost had been suggested to attain uniformity. At the same time, the Court also made it abundantly clear that the concerned Court would be at liberty to reduce the costs with regard to specific facts and circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such variance.What follows from the above is that normally costs as specified in the guidelines laid down in the said judgment has to be imposed on the accused persons while permitting compounding. There can be departure therefrom in a particular case, for good reasons to be recorded in writing by the concerned Court. It is for this reason that the Court mentioned three objectives which were sought to be achieved by framing those guidelines, as taken note of above. It is thus manifestly the framing of “Guidelines” in this judgment was also to achieve a particular public purpose. Here comes the issue for consideration as to whether these guidelines are to be given a go by when a case is decided/settled in the Lok Adalat? Our answer is that it may not be necessarily so and a proper balance can be struck taking care of both the situations. Having regard thereto, we are of the opinion that even when a case is decided in Lok Adalat, the requirement of following the guidelines contained in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) should normally not be dispensed with. However, if there is a special/specific reason to deviate therefrom, the Court is not remediless as Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) itself has given discretion to the concerned Court to reduce the costs with regard to specific facts and circumstances of the case, while recording reasons in writing about such variance. Therefore, in those matters where the case has to be decided/settled in the Lok Adalat, if the Court finds that it is a result of positive attitude of the parties, in such appropriate cases, the Court can always reduce the costs by imposing minimal costs or even waive the same. For that, it would be for the parties, particularly the accused person, to make out a plausible case for the waiver/reduction of costs and to convince the concerned Court about the same. This course ofaction, according to us, would strike a balance between the two competing but equally important interests, namely, achieving the objectives delineated in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) on the one hand and the public interest which is sought to be achieved by encouraging settlements/resolution of case through Lok Adalats. = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8614 OF 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38519 of 2012) |MADHYA PRADESH STATE LEGAL | | |SERVICES AUTHORITY |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |PRATEEK JAIN & ANR. |.....RESPONDENT(S) = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41902