2021 (10) TMI 581 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - adjudgement of testimonial worth of prosecution evidence - Existence of sufficient ground to proceed with the matter or not - HELD THAT - The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. 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. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act - Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Sufficiency of material to proceed against accused - Categories justifying quashing of complaint - Compounding of offence in cheque bounce cases - Delay in opting for compounding - Directions for accused to seek compounding within specified timeline.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings in a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court highlighted that the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel involved disputed questions of fact and the veracity of prosecution evidence. The court emphasized that it should not delve into a detailed inquiry at this stage but only require a prima facie satisfaction of the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed. The judgment referred to various legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to establish the principles guiding the quashing of complaints or charge sheets.

The court cited cases such as Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose and Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker to underscore the settled law on the sufficiency of material to justify summoning of the accused. It also referenced the categories recognized by the Apex Court, as in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, which may warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings. The judgment emphasized that the case did not fall within these recognized categories, leading to the refusal of the prayer for quashing the proceedings.

Furthermore, the judgment addressed the issue of compounding of offences in cheque bounce cases. It considered the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu, highlighting the compensatory aspect of the remedy over the punitive aspect in such cases. The court acknowledged the delay in opting for compounding, leading to undue delays in justice delivery. In light of these considerations, the court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a specified period to seek compounding of the offence through compromise, with a timeline set for the court to pass necessary orders based on the application.

In conclusion, the judgment provided detailed analysis and legal reasoning regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings, the principles guiding such decisions, and the importance of timely compounding of offences in cheque bounce cases to expedite justice delivery. The court's directions aimed to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties while ensuring adherence to legal procedures and timelines.