2020 (11) TMI 888 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case - HELD THAT - This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 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 - It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by the applicant in the stipulated period of time. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Application for quashing summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Analysis:
The applicant sought to quash the summoning order and proceedings of a criminal case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, alleging the allegations were false and the cheque was given for security, not against any existing debt. The applicant argued that the complaint was not maintainable as the notice of demand was not served on the company. The court noted that the submissions raised questions of fact and law best left for trial court adjudication. The court found a prima facie case against the accused based on the complaint and record, refusing to quash the proceedings as they did not fall under recognized categories for quashing by the Apex Court.

Compounding of Offence:
The applicant requested a chance to settle the matter amicably, citing Supreme Court decisions encouraging compounding of offences to reduce court pendency. The court directed the accused to appear within a month and seek compounding through compromise. The court allowed a maximum of four months for the accused to attempt settlement, after which necessary orders would be passed. If settlement failed, the court could proceed with trial. No coercive measures were to be taken against the applicant during this period, with no extension of time allowed beyond the specified period.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the court's decision regarding the quashing of the summoning order and the opportunity for compounding the offence through compromise.