Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2020 (9) TMI 1064 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
- Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summoning order and proceedings in a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
- Sufficiency of material justifying summoning of accused and court's decision to proceed
- Legal principles regarding quashing of complaints or charge sheets
- Request for settlement of matter amicably through compounding of offence

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought to quash the summoning order and proceedings in a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court noted that the contentions raised related to disputed questions of fact, questioning the veracity of prosecution evidence and alleging false implication. The court emphasized that only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed in the matter is required, as settled in various legal precedents.

2. The court referred to several decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose, Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker, and Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, to expound on the legal aspects regarding the sufficiency of material to justify summoning of accused. It was highlighted that the court should not embark on a roving enquiry into the case details and should avoid determining the ultimate outcome of the case at the initial stage.

3. The judgment also discussed the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet, citing cases like R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. The court emphasized that cases where allegations do not constitute an offence, are absurd or legally barred, or are maliciously instituted may be fit for quashing. The court found that the present case did not fall within these recognized categories.

4. Furthermore, the court addressed the request for amicable settlement through compounding of the offence. Referring to the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., the court highlighted the importance of prioritizing the compensatory aspect over the punitive aspect in cases of dishonour of cheques. The court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a specified period to seek compounding of the offence, emphasizing the need for timely resolution to avoid undue delay in justice delivery.

5. The court's order provided a timeline for the accused to pursue compounding of the offence, ensuring that coercive measures would not be taken during the specified period. The court's decision was made in light of the legal principles and precedents discussed throughout the judgment, aiming to facilitate a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter.

By considering the legal principles, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case, the court addressed the issues raised by the applicant comprehensively, ensuring a balanced approach to the proceedings and the request for amicable settlement through compounding of the offence.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates