TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2008 (5) TMI 429 - Supreme Court of India] - Decided in favour of appellant. - CRL.A. 191/2005 - - - Dated:- 12-11-2013 - MR. G.S.SISTANI, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Shiv Khorana, Adv. V For the Respondent :: Mr. J. P. Gupta, Adv. JUDGEMENT MR. G.S. SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties submit that it is not necessary to summon the trial court record as certified copies of the order sheets and pleadings have been placed on record. 2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 3.8.2004 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No.922/1 of 2002, by which the complaint of the appellant herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that since the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement and compromised the matter, the complaint was bound to be dismissed and in case the subsequent cheque handed over to the complainant was dishonoured, being a separate cause of action, a fresh complaint would lie. 4. The trial court took the aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Venketesh Dutt v. M.S. Shoe East Limited, reported at 109 (2004) DLT 480, relevant portion of which reads as under: Proceeding under Section 138 of the act are penal proceeding and are independent of civil remedy of suit for recovery and therefore cannot be allowed to be converted into a civil suit. Since the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is of compou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed representative of the appellant accepted the cheque and the compromise deed, which was to be signed after consulting the lawyer. The Agreement was to be handed over after 25.10.2003. Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has failed to take into consideration the order dated 1.11.2003 by which it was categorically recorded that no compromise had taken place between the parties and in the absence of any compromise the judgment in the case of Venketesh (supra) would not be applicable besides the decision rendered in the case of Venketesh (supra) is no longer good law in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported at (2008) 5 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted at 2009 V AD (DELHI) 757 has held that the case of Venketesh (supra) is no longer good law in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court of India. 8. Mr. J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the parties had arrived at an amicable settlement and in terms of the settlement the cheque was handed over to the appellant. Counsel further submits that once the cheque was presented by the appellant, in case of dishonour a fresh cause of action would arise and, thus, the trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. The basic facts of this case are not in dispute that the appellant had filed a complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at he can give 15 days time to make the payment. Both parties are struck to their stand to make payment. In these circumstances matter cannot be compromised. Put up for P.E. on 21/2/2004. 11. The submission made by the authorised representative of the complainant, which has been reproduced above, would show that he had agreed to withdraw the civil suit pending before the District Judge and the present complaint only on encashment of the cheque. He received a copy of the compromise deed but agreed to sign it after consulting his lawyer. Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that there was a complete settlement between the parties or else the complaint would have been dismissed on the same date. Moreover, there was no occasion for the trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|