RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2210/2024
Decision Date: 08-04-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC347

 




 Disclaimer 


 
								 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments. 
						Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.
						 RAJ REDDY KALLEM versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. - [2024] 5 S.C.R. 2032024 INSC 347 A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIA Issue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Additionally, an FIR was also filed against the appellant u/ ss.406, 420, 120B, IPC. Parties agreed to compound the offence at the appellate stage and a settlement was reached. But, the appellant could the time stipulated in the settlement agreement. However, eventually, entire amount was paid by him but, the complainant did not agree for compounding of the offence. Complainant, if can be compelled by the courts to give consent for compounding of the matter. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act, 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.-[2024] 5 S.C.R. 2032024 INSC 347Coram : A.S. BOPANNA, SUDHANSHU DHULIAIssue for Consideration Appellant was convicted u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Additionally, an FIR was also filed against the appellant u/ ss.406, 420, 120B, IPC. Parties agreed to compound the offence at the appellate stage and a settlement was reached. But, the appellant could the time stipulated in the settlement agreement. However, eventually, entire amount was paid by him but, the complainant did not agree for compounding of the offence. Complainant, if can be compelled by the courts to give consent for compounding of the matter. Headnotes Negotiable Instruments Act,