2020 (3) TMI 990 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - summon of Accused - insufficiency of material - HELD THAT - It is directed that the accused may appear before the court below within a period of one month from today through the representing counsel and move an application seeking compounding of offence through compromise. On such application being moved the concerned court may take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a maximum period of four months from today to make an endeavour in this direction. If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and he is further required to appear and face the trial, the court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary steps and measures to procure his attendance as the law permits. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash summoning order under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Adjudication on disputed questions of fact and testimonial worth of prosecution evidence.
3. Legal aspect of sufficiency of material justifying the summoning of accused.
4. Categories justifying quashing of complaint or charge sheet recognized by Apex Court.
5. Prima facie case against accused and refusal to quash proceedings.
6. Opportunity for amicable settlement and compounding of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. Directive for accused to appear and move application for compounding within one month.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a summoning order dated 20.04.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court heard arguments from both sides and perused the record before proceeding with the analysis.
2. The contentions raised by the applicant's counsel involved disputed questions of fact and the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence. The court emphasized the need for the trial court to adjudicate on these aspects, avoiding a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.
3. The judgment delved into the legal aspect of sufficiency of material justifying the summoning of the accused. It highlighted the court's role in proceeding against the accused based on a prima facie satisfaction of the existence of sufficient grounds, without delving into a roving enquiry or predicting the trial's outcome.
4. Categories justifying the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet were discussed, citing precedents from the Apex Court. The court referred to specific cases to illustrate instances where criminal proceedings may be quashed, emphasizing the need for the case to fall within recognized categories.
5. The court found a prima facie case against the accused at the current stage and refused to quash the complaint or summoning order, stating that the case did not align with the categories recognized by the Apex Court for quashing proceedings.
6. The judgment addressed the possibility of an amicable settlement and compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It referenced a Supreme Court decision encouraging settlements to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system.
7. The court directed the accused to appear within a month and move an application seeking compounding of the offence through compromise. It outlined a timeline for the court below to handle the application and proceedings, keeping the non-bailable warrant in abeyance during this period.

This comprehensive analysis covers the legal nuances and key aspects of the judgment delivered by the High Court, addressing each issue involved in detail.