A cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be settled at almost any stage of the legal process. However, the longer the parties wait to resolve the dispute, the higher the additional cost the accused may have to pay for compounding the offence. Under the framework clarified by the Supreme Court and applied by high courts, that additional cost can range from zero to 10 percent of the cheque amount, depending on when the settlement is reached.
Why Cheque Bounce Cases Can Still Be Settled Late
Section 138 makes the dishonour of a cheque for insufficiency of funds a criminal offence, but the law also treats it as compoundable. This means the complainant and the accused can agree to settle, and the court can close the case upon payment of the cheque amount along with any costs or conditions it imposes. Settlement is possible even after a conviction has been recorded or upheld in appeal, provided the complainant consents and the court permits compounding.
The purpose of the graded cost structure is to encourage early resolution while still allowing parties to settle later if circumstances change. Courts recognise that prolonged litigation benefits neither side and adds to the already heavy pendency of cheque-bounce matters across the country.
The Stage-Wise Cost Structure
According to the guidelines revisited by the Supreme Court and reflected in recent high court orders, the additional cost payable for compounding rises with the progress of the case:
-
If the accused pays the cheque amount before the recording of defence evidence in the trial court, compounding may be allowed without any additional cost or penalty.
-
If payment is made after defence evidence has been recorded but before the trial court delivers its judgment, an additional 5 percent of the cheque amount may be imposed.
-
When the matter has reached the Sessions Court or the High Court in appeal or revision, the additional cost can rise to 7.5 percent.
-
If settlement occurs only after the case reaches the Supreme Court, the figure can go up to 10 percent of the cheque amount.
These percentages are calculated on the face value of the cheque. For a cheque of Rs 10 lakh, a settlement at the Sessions or High Court stage could therefore attract an extra Rs 75,000, while a Supreme Court-stage settlement could cost an additional Rs 1 lakh, over and above the original cheque amount and other legal expenses already incurred.
Practical Implications for Both Parties
For the person who issued the cheque, early settlement is almost always financially wiser. Paying at the pre-defence-evidence stage avoids the extra percentage entirely and also reduces advocate fees, court appearances and the stress of a pending criminal case. Waiting until higher courts become involved multiplies both the compounding cost and the cumulative legal expenditure.
For the complainant, early recovery of the money is usually preferable to years of litigation. Although a higher percentage may be recoverable if the case travels further, the delay, uncertainty and cost of pursuing the matter often outweigh the marginal gain. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that the primary object of Section 138 proceedings is compensatory—ensuring the payee receives the money due—rather than purely punitive.
Discretion and Exceptional Cases
While the percentage guidelines provide a clear framework, courts retain discretion. In exceptional circumstances, a court may reduce or even waive the additional cost. Recent orders have clarified that compounding remains available even after a conviction is upheld in appeal, though the normal cost structure continues to apply unless the court finds strong reasons to depart from it. Parties should not assume automatic waiver; any request for reduction must be supported by specific grounds.
Other Costs Beyond the Percentage
The compounding percentage is only one part of the financial picture. Both sides typically incur bank return charges, advocate fees for notices and hearings, court fees and incidental expenses. The accused may also face an interim compensation order of up to 20 percent of the cheque amount under Section 143A while the case is still pending. These amounts are separate from the final settlement or compounding cost.
Interest on the cheque amount is sometimes negotiated as part of a settlement. Courts have observed that reasonable interest can form part of the compensation awarded to the complainant. The exact figure depends on the facts of each case and the agreement between the parties.
Why Timing Matters
Cheque-bounce litigation can stretch for years if contested through the trial court and successive appeals. During that period, the accused lives with the uncertainty of a criminal case, while the complainant remains unpaid. The graduated cost structure is designed to create a financial incentive for resolution at the earliest feasible stage. The difference between settling before defence evidence and settling only at the Supreme Court can amount to a substantial sum, especially when the cheque value is high.
Parties who recognise that a negotiated outcome is inevitable are generally better served by acting sooner rather than later. Once the decision to settle is made, the formal process involves payment of the agreed amount, a joint application for compounding, and the court’s order closing the proceedings.
Key Takeaway
A cheque-bounce case does not have to run its full course. Settlement remains possible from the earliest stage of the trial all the way to the Supreme Court. The price of delay, however, is clear: the additional cost for compounding can move from zero to 5 percent, then 7.5 percent, and finally 10 percent of the cheque amount as the matter climbs the judicial ladder. Understanding this framework helps both the drawer and the payee make informed decisions about when—and on what terms—to bring the dispute to an end. Early resolution usually saves money, time and unnecessary conflict for everyone involved.
Read more – situsmerahtoto.info