2022 (8) TMI 818 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - compounding of offences or not - settlement by way of filing a civil suit - 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. The court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary steps and measures to procure their attendance as the law permits - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Application for quashing proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act - Compounding of offence - Settlement between parties.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the proceedings of Complaint No. 737 of 2020 and the summoning order dated 10.12.2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant was not involved in any offense as alleged in the complaint, suggesting that the matter raised by the opposite party was a civil dispute and could be resolved through a civil suit. It was emphasized that the offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable, and there was a possibility of amicably settling the dispute between the parties.

The judge considered the submissions in light of a Supreme Court case, Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., which highlighted the compensatory aspect of the remedy over the punitive aspect concerning dishonour of cheques. The judgment emphasized the importance of prioritizing the compensatory aspect in such cases and raised concerns about delays in justice delivery due to parties choosing compounding as a last resort rather than at earlier stages of litigation. It was noted that if accused persons settle or compromise through compounding at a later stage, it could indicate merit in the complainant's case.

As a result, the court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a month and move an application seeking compounding of the offense through compromise. The lower court was instructed to take necessary steps in accordance with the law and provide a maximum of four months for the accused to make efforts towards settlement. If the proceedings were not concluded through the application, the court could proceed against the accused as per the law. Coercive measures against the accused were prohibited for three months or until a decision was made based on the application, whichever came earlier. The order specified that no extension of time would be granted if the accused failed to comply within the stipulated period.

The judgment clarified that the order was specific to the accused on whose behalf the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was filed. With these directives and observations, the application was disposed of by the court.