Prima facie satisfaction for proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires no quashing unless clear abuse of process is demonstrated.

JUDGMENT

Neeraj Tiwari, J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing the summoning order dated 29.9.2022 as well as proceedings of Complaint Case No. 213 of 2021 (Sachin Tyagi v. Subodh Tyagi), under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint has been filed against the applicant with malicious intention by opposite party no. 2. He further submits that by perusal of fact, it is apparently clear that no case is made out against the applicant in which notice has been issued under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. All the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel 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 intricacies of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel.

5. The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of accused and also the court's decision to proceed against him in a given case is well settled. The court has to eschew itself from embarking upon a roving enquiry into the last details of the case. It is also not advisable to adjudge whether the case shall ultimately end in conviction or not. Only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The fact of issuance of cheque in question has not been disputed by the applicant.

6. Perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicant arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing.

7. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.

8. In the last, the counsel has urged before the Court that the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence involved are such in which the litigating parties should be given a chance to settle this matter amicably and for this purpose some protective direction may be given by this Court so that adequate steps may be taken in furtherance of the same object. The counsel has also placed reliance on the Apex Court given in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. , 2010 (5) SCC 663 in this regard. Submission is that the Apex Court decision has taken cognizance of the heavy pendency of the cases in the courts which may result ultimately in the chocking of criminal justice system. It has been urged that with the laudable object of providing the rival parties, who have hitherto locked their horns in litigation, an opportunity to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement and put an end to the escalating litigations, the compounding of the offence has not only been encouraged but in order to given incentive to do so at the earliest stage, certain directions have also been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. I have considered the last submission made by the counsel in the light of the aforesaid case law. It may be relevant to quote the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) which read as follows :-

"17. In a recently published commentary, the following observa