2019 (8) TMI 944 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - appropriate forum for recovery of money - failure to make the payment of the requisite amounts pursuant to notices on demands that had been issued by the said parties in the wake of return of cheques by the bank upon presentation - compounding of offences - HELD THAT - The court of Metropolitan Magistrate is not a forum for recovery of money. It is a criminal court which is called upon to adjudicate on the complaint alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Undoubtedly, the said offence is compoundable. No doubt, if the parties are so inclined the court encourages settlement of dispute in such matters. But then, the court cannot be used by either side to protract and prolong the proceedings as if it were executing the settlement that may have been arrived at outside the court without the proceedings in the complaint case having been brought to an end. Since the respondents have failed to abide by the terms of the settlement, they cannot derive any benefit of the settlement agreement. In these circumstances, it is the obligation of the petitioner to prosecute the complaint cases further in accordance with law. The view taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate that the cases have to be brought to trial, thus, cannot be faulted. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Enforcement of settlement agreement in criminal complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed criminal complaints against the respondents under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A settlement agreement was reached through Delhi Mediation Cell on 26.11.2016, where the respondents agreed to pay a total sum of ?16,00,000 in sixteen post-dated cheques. The parties also agreed to compound the offence upon full payment and withdrawal of the cases.

2. The settlement agreement was presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 16.12.2016. However, due to the absence of respondents on 03.01.2017, the petitioner informed the court about the post-dated cheques received. Subsequently, when the cheques failed to clear, non-bailable warrants were issued against the respondents for non-compliance.

3. Despite several proceedings and cancellations of warrants upon oral requests by the respondents, the petitioner sought enforcement of the settlement agreement and recovery of the balance amount as fine. The Metropolitan Magistrate declined this request and proceeded with the trial, leading to the petitioner's challenge in the court of sessions through Criminal Revision Petitions.

4. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking intervention, relying on the ruling in Dayawati vs. Yogesh Kumar Gosain, emphasizing the recovery of the settlement amount as fine due to the mediation settlement and undertakings given by the respondents before the Metropolitan Magistrate.

5. The High Court referred to the observations in Dayawati case, highlighting the procedure for adopting a settlement agreement in criminal cases. It noted that in the present case, there was no formal recording or inquiry into the voluntariness of the settlement agreement by the Metropolitan Magistrate, thus lacking an enforceable court order regarding the settlement.

6. The court emphasized that the Metropolitan Magistrate is not a forum for money recovery but to adjudicate on criminal complaints. As the criminal proceedings were not brought to an end in accordance with the Dayawati ruling, and the respondents failed to comply with the settlement terms, the court upheld the decision that the cases must proceed to trial, dismissing the petitioner's petitions.

7. Ultimately, the High Court endorsed the view that the cases should proceed to trial as no effective order bringing the criminal proceedings to an end, as required by the Dayawati ruling, was passed. The obligation to prosecute the complaint cases further in accordance with the law was placed on the petitioner, leading to the dismissal of both petitions.