IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Gautam Chowdhary, J.
Manoj Maurya – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 15385 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021
N.I. Act - Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Quash of criminal proceedings - Truthfulness and integrity of material furnished on behalf of prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded - Accused may appear before court below within a period of one month from today through representing counsel and move an application seeking compounding of offence, through compromise.
Finding of the Court : In aforesaid period of five months or till decision given in light of application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against accused - It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by accused in stipulated period of time - It is further clarified that for present this order has been passed only with regard to accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.
Result : Application is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 2.4.2021 passed by learned Additional Judge Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3957 of 2018 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Manoj Maurya), under section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
3. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various complications of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The truthfulness and integrity of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(5) SCC 663 which read as follows :-
"17. In a recently published commentary, the following observations have been made with regard to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act [Cited from: Arun Mohan, Some thoughts towards law reforms on the topic of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act-Tackling an avalanche of cases (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2009) at p. 5] :
"... Unlike that for other forms of crime, the punishment here (in so far as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque.
If we were to examine the number of complaints filed which were ‘compromised' or ‘settled' before the final judgment on one side and the cases which proceeded to judgment and conviction on the other, we will find that the bulk was settled and only a miniscule number continued."
18. It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect. There is also some support for the apprehensions raised by the learned Attorney General that a majority of cheque bounce cases are indeed being compromised or settled by way of compounding, albeit during the later stages of litigation thereby contributing to undue delay in justice delivery. The problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute. ?....................
19. As mentioned earlier, the learned Attorney General's submission is that in the absence of statutory guidance, parties are choosing compounding as a method of last resort instead of opting for it as soon as the Magistrates take cognizance of the complaints. One explanation for such behaviour could be that the accused persons are willing to take the chance of progressing through the various stages of litigation and then choose the route of settlement only when no other route remains. While such behaviour may be viewed as rational from the viewpoint of litigants, the hard facts are that the undue delay in opting for compounding contributes to the arrears pending before the courts at various levels. If the accused is willing to settle or compromise by way of compounding of the offence at a later stage of litigation, it is generally indicative of some merit in the complainant's case. In such cases it would be desirable if parties choose compounding during the earlier stages of litigation. If however, the accused has a valid defence such as a mistake, forgery or coercion among other grounds, then the matter can be litigated through the specified forums."
5. In v
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.