2021 (10) TMI 378 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - on the basis of compromise deed relief granted to accused - violation of terms of settlement agreement - jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the prosecution on the basis of the deed of compromise which has not been implemented due to the default of the accused - existence of liability or not - cheques were issued as and by way of security are matters for trial - legally enforceable debt or not - embargo under Section 138 of the NI Act on parallel proceedings for distinct offences involving the dishonor of cheques or not - whether parallel prosecutions arising from a single transaction under Section 138 of the NI Act can be sustained? HELD THAT - In this case, a set of cheques were dishonoured, leading to filing of the first complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. The parties thereafter entered into a deed of compromise to settle the matter. While the first complaint was pending, the cheques issued pursuant to the compromise deed were dishonoured leading to the second complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Both proceedings are pending simultaneously and it is for this Court to decide whether the complainant can be allowed to pursue both the cases or whether one of them must be quashed and the consequences resulting from such quashing. The nature of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is quasi-criminal in that, while it arises out of a civil wrong, the law, however, imposes a criminal penalty in the form of imprisonment or fine. The purpose of the enactment is to provide security to creditors and instil confidence in the banking system of the country - Given that the primary purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act is to ensure compensation to the complainant, the NI Act also allows for parties to enter into a compromise, both during the pendency of the complaint and even after the conviction of the accused. Under the shadow of Section 138 of the NI Act, parties are encouraged to settle the dispute resulting in ultimate closure of the case rather than continuing with a protracted litigation before the court. This is beneficial for the complainant as it results in early recovery of money; alteration of the terms of the contract for higher compensation and avoidance of litigation. Equally, the accused is benefitted as it leads to avoidance of a conviction and sentence or payment of a fine. Whether once the settlement has been entered into, the complainant can be allowed to pursue the original complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act? - HELD THAT - Allowing prosecution under both sets of complaints would be contrary to the purpose of the enactment. As noted above, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy that should be given priority as opposed to the punitive aspect. The complainant in such cases is primarily concerned with the recovery of money, the conviction of the accused serves little purpose. In fact, the threat of jail acts as a stick to ensure payment of money - a complainant cannot pursue two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying transaction. Once a settlement agreement has been entered into by the parties, the proceedings in the original complaint cannot be sustained and a fresh cause of action accrues to the complainant under the terms of the settlement deed. Once the compromise deed dated 12 March 2013 was agreed, the original complaint must be quashed and parties must proceed with the remedies available in law under the settlement agreement. Liability arising from the settlement agreement - HELD THAT - Once a settlement agreement has been entered into between the parties, the parties are bound by the terms of the agreement and any violation of the same may result in consequential action in civil and criminal law - There was no basis for the learned Single Judge to conclude, particularly in the course of the hearing of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC that the second set of cheques issued in pursuance of the deed of compromise cannot be construed as being towards the discharge of a liability. The question as to whether the liability exists or not is clearly a matter of trial. There was a serious error on the part of the Single Judge in allowing the petition under Section 482 to quash the prosecution on the basis that the deed of compromise would not constitute a legally enforceable liability. The mere fact that a suit is pending before the High Court challenging the validity of the compromise deed would furnish no cogent basis to quash the proceedings under Section 138. The High Court has failed to notice the true meaning and import of the presumption under Section 139 which can only be displaced on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial - In the event that the compromise deed is found to be void ab initio on account of coercion, the very basis for quashing of the first complaint is removed since the settlement agreement is deemed to have never existed and hence it had no effect on the liability subsisting under the first complaint. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Parallel Prosecutions
2. Liability Arising from the Settlement Agreement

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Parallel Prosecutions:
The primary question before the Court was whether parallel prosecutions arising from a single transaction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) can be sustained. The Court analyzed the ingredients of the offence under Section 138, which include the drawing of a cheque, its presentation, return unpaid by the bank, notice of demand, and failure to pay within 15 days. The Court emphasized the quasi-criminal nature of the offence, which aims to ensure compensation to the complainant and instill confidence in the banking system.

The Court noted that the primary purpose of Section 138 is compensatory, and parties are encouraged to settle disputes to avoid protracted litigation. The Court observed that allowing prosecution under both sets of complaints would be contrary to the purpose of the enactment, as it would lead to contradictory results, increased burden on the criminal justice system, and discourage settlements.

The Court held that once a settlement agreement is entered into, the original complaint must be quashed, and a fresh cause of action accrues under the terms of the settlement. The Court stated, "A complainant cannot pursue two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying transaction." The Court also distinguished the current case from previous judgments, noting that the facts and circumstances of each case determine whether a fresh cause of action arises.

Liability Arising from the Settlement Agreement:
The Court addressed the issue of whether the second set of cheques issued pursuant to the deed of compromise could be construed as being towards the discharge of a liability. The Court held that once the ingredients of Section 138 are fulfilled, a distinct offence arises in respect of the dishonour of the cheques. The Court found no basis for the High Court's conclusion that the second set of cheques issued in pursuance of the deed of compromise cannot be construed as being towards the discharge of a liability, stating, "The question as to whether the liability exists or not is clearly a matter of trial."

The Court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, which shifts the burden on the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal complaint based on the presumption that the second set of cheques were not in discharge of a liability.

The Court also addressed the argument that the appellant repudiated the deed of compromise by failing to withdraw the criminal complaint and arbitration proceedings. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the breach of the deed of compromise arose due to the dishonour of the cheques issued by the accused towards discharge of the remaining balance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge quashing the second complaint (CC No. 389/2017) and quashed the first set of complaints (CC Nos. 3326-3329 of 2012 and CC Nos. 99-101 of 2013). The Court held that the parties must proceed with the remedies available under the settlement agreement, and the issue of liability arising from the settlement agreement must be determined at trial. The Court kept all rights and contentions of the parties open for determination during the trial.