The court emphasized that the basic object of the law contained in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to enhance the credibility of cheque transactions, and the conduct of the accused in this case was found to be an abuse of the process of law.

1. The petitioner is one of the accused persons (second accused) facing prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, 1881) in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal complaint (CC No.11828/1/2010) instituted by the second respondent, he being one of the directors (authorized signatory) of company M/s. H.M. Informatics Pvt. Ltd. He had moved an application under Section 147 of the N.I. Act, 1881 praying to the Metropolitan Magistrate that the proceedings in the case be closed as the offence had been compounded on account of settlement of the dispute between the parties. His application was declined by the Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated 05.11.2014. He challenged the said order before the Court of Sessions by criminal revision petition No.08/2015 invoking its revisional jurisdiction. His revision petition was dismissed by order dated 17.07.2015. He has come up to this court invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying for intervention on the contention that the continuation of the proceedings before the trial court is an abuse of the process of law.

2. The learned counsel on both sides, i.e., the petitioner (accused) and the second respondent (the complainant) have been heard at length. The record has been perused.

3. It is pointed out by the counsel for the complainant that the criminal case relates to cheque bearing Nos.204247 dated 14.08.2010 for Rs.9,89,100/- and cheque bearing No.204252, dated 29.08.2010 for Rs.29,99,409/- both drawn on Union Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi, that had been issued by the petitioner as the authorized signatory of the company accused for discharge of its liability towards the complainant for goods (computer hardware and components) that had been supplied. Both the said cheques were returned, upon presentation, unpaid with remarks “insufficient funds”, vide cheque returning memo dated 17.09.2010. The complainant served demand notice on 28.09.2010 in spite of which no payment was made. The criminal complaint was filed in the wake of the said facts within the statutory period.

4. The complaint was contested for some time. On 15.02.2011, however, parties approached the trial court on the basis of a settlement agreement dated 12.02.2011 whereunder the complainant had agreed to withdraw the criminal complaint case on the assurance of payment of Rs.42,90,858/- as full and final settlement of its claim, the petitioner having handed over in such context six post-dated cheques to the complainant. The statements of the parties were recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.02.2011. The Magistrate, however, kept the case alive awaiting confirmation of payment.

5. On 23.03.2011, the petitioner and other accused persons did not appear. The complainant informed the trial court that first of the six post-dated cheques, upon presentation, had been dishonoured. The trial court issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and other accused. Though the warrants were cancelled later on appearance of the accused, the matter kept hanging fire, the petitioner and other accused persons submitting that they were willing to settle.

6. On 27.06.2011, the petitioner and the other accused submitted a “fresh schedule of payment” but the same was not acceptable to the complainant, this submission being recorded on 02.07.2011.

7. The trial commenced with service of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. being framed on 12.08.2011. But, at that stage, on account of absence of one of the accused the plea could not be recorded. Later, the petitioner paid Rupees One lakh to the complainant in the form of demand draft on 29.11.2011, this being followed by some further payments. However, the expectations of the complainant for full and final settlement remained unaddressed.

8. At this stage, it may be mentioned that simultaneously another criminal complai