IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque-Even after issuance of notice if payee or holder does not make payment within stipulated period, statutory presumption would be of dishonest intention exposing to criminal liability.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein has challenged the order passed by the High Court whereby it has allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein, who are the Directors in a company known as M/s. Ria Constructions Ltd. and was pleased to quash the complaint lodged by the appellant as also all consequential proceedings pending before the Magistrate in regard to the complaint lodged by the appellant for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. Admittedly, the accused no. 2 in the complaint had issued the cheque in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, which was dishonoured as there was instruction of 'stop payment' by the Managing Director. This led to the lodgment of a complaint at the instance of the petitioner in which proceedings started.

4. At this stage, the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short) praying for quashing of the complaint and all consequential proceeding wherein the respondents had offered to tender the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/-to the appellant who had lodged the complaint alleging that the stop payment instructions by the respondents was illegal which made the offence triable in a summary procedure before the Magistrate. As already stated, the respondents offered to pay the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/-which had been dishonoured due to instructions of stop payment.

5. The High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein for quashing of the proceeding but the said order was passed ex-parte. The appellant, therefore, filed an application for recall of the said order but the High Court dismissed the application for recall on the ground that the averments in the complaint did not meet the test laid down by this Court in the matter of N.K. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and others, 2007 (9) SCC 481. It is this order which is under challenge in this special leave petition at the instance of the appellant-complainant.

6. We have heard counsel for the appellant as also the respondents and taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this appeal is not fit to be entertained against rejection of the application for recall of the order by which the proceedings against the respondents herein had been quashed by the High Court. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the fact that the appellant should not be deprived of the amount for which the respondents had stopped payment which led to the lodgment of the complaint. We, therefore, suggested to the respondents that they should honour the cheque which had been issued by them by making the payment along with the interest, which would be in the nature of compensation for stop payment instructions at their instance and that amount by way of lump sum amount including interest and compensation would be around Rs.5 lakhs.

7. The respondents have agreed to pay the said amount but the appellant has refused to accept the payment and insisted that the appeal against rejection of the recall application should be allowed by this Court. Counsel for the appellant submitted that merely because the accused has offered to make the payment at a later stage, the same cannot compel the complainant-appellant to accept it and the complainant-appellant would be justified in pursuing the complaint which was lodged under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In support of his submission, counsel for the Appellant also relied on a citation of Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Amit J. Bhalla (2001) 1 SCC 631.

8. However, we do not feel persuaded to accept this submission as the appellant has to apprise himself that the primary object and reason of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is not merely penal in nature but is to maintain the efficiency and value of a negotiable instrument by making the accused honour the negotiable instrument and paying the amount for which the instrument had been executed.

9. The object of bringing Sections 138 to