JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned AGA and perused the record on board.

2. The present applicant has invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 CrPC assailing the orders dated 6.1.2023 and 25.1.2023 passed by the trial court while rejecting the miscellaneous applications moved on behalf of the present accused-applicant in case No. 1827 of 2020 ( Jafar Alam v. Gulfam ), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in brevity, 'N.I. Act').

3. Facts culled out from the record are that respondent No. 2 has moved a complaint dated 12.4.2018 under section 138 of N.I. Act with respect to dishonour of cheque being No. 007708 dated 22.12.2017 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-. Learned trial court, after considering the contents of the complaint and the statements of the witnesses, has issued the summoning order. During pendency of the case, the present applicant (accused) has moved an application dated 12.2.2021 under section 82 of N.I. Act with an averment that entire cheque amount i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- has been paid, therefore, the complaint may be rejected and compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- should be given to the accused against damages. The learned trial court, vide impugned order dated 6.1.2023 (annexure No. 8), has rejected the application dated 12.2.2021. In the meantime, accused has moved an application to decide the case on the basis of alleged compromise dated 25.1.2023. At later stage, the trial court by subsequent order dated 25.1.2023 (annexure No. 9) has rejected the alleged compromise dated 28.11.2018. Having been aggrieved against the orders dated 6.1.2023 (annexure No. 8) and 25.1.2023 (annexure No. 9), the present applicant (accused) has filed instant application under Section 482 CrPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the entire money amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- has already been paid to the complainant, there was no occasion to permit the proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act to continue and the same should have been rejected on this ground and the applicant should have been discharged under section 82 of the N.I. Act. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 13.11.2018 (annexure No. 2) passed by this Court in application under Section 482 No. 40253 of 2018, the applicant has moved an application before the trial court to decide the same in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010(5) SCC 663, however, the same has illegally been rejected by the trial court, vide order dated 25.1.2023, without properly appreciating the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned decided case. It is further submitted that at present no cause of action survives inasmuch as entire money has been paid to the complainant, therefore, there is no justification to proceed with matter under Section 138 N.I. Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has contended that the claim made by the applicant is a disputed question of fact and the same is subject to evidence to be adduced by the parties before the trial court, therefore, at this juncture, it cannot be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 CrPC. It is further submitted that under a mischievous conduct, the applicant has moved an application dated 28.11.2018 showing amicable settlement between the parties, however, in fact, no such compromise had taken place betwee