2020 (9) TMI 1061 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Validity of summon order - HELD THAT - The submissions made by the learned counsel for 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. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins - there are no justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing - prayer for quashing the same is refused as there are no abuse of the Court's process either. As requested by the counsel, 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. Thereafter, the court shall pass necessary orders within a period of five months from today. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Application to quash summoning order under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - sufficiency of material to justify summoning accused - categories justifying quashing of complaint - encouragement of compounding of offence - directive for accused to seek compounding within specified timeline.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a summoning order dated 16.01.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Vth, Meerut in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court was required to determine the sufficiency of material justifying the summoning of the accused and the decision to proceed against them. The court emphasized that only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed in the matter is necessary, avoiding a roving inquiry into the case's details. The court referred to various legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to elucidate the settled law in this regard.

The judgment highlighted that certain categories, as recognized by the Apex Court, may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet, such as when the allegations do not constitute an offense, are absurd, legally barred, or maliciously instituted. The court observed that the case did not fall within these categories, indicating a prima facie case against the accused at that stage, hence refusing the prayer for quashing the complaint or summoning order.

Moreover, the court considered the possibility of encouraging the compounding of the offense to resolve the matter amicably and reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. Citing the Apex Court's decision in a relevant case, the court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a month through their counsel to seek compounding of the offense. The court provided a timeline for the accused to endeavor towards a settlement, emphasizing that coercive measures against the accused should not be taken during this period. The directive aimed to facilitate a potential resolution and expedite the legal process, aligning with the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

In conclusion, the judgment disposed of the application with these observations, balancing the interests of justice, the need for expeditious resolution, and the encouragement of amicable settlements in appropriate cases. The court's decision reflected a nuanced approach considering legal precedents, statutory provisions, and the overarching objective of efficient dispute resolution within the criminal justice system.