JUDGMENT

Samit Gopal, J.

List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ramveer Singh Verma with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1823 of 2018 ( Chandra Prakash v. Ramveer Singh Verma ) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Iradat Nagar, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Court, Court No.-II, Agra with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicant during the pendency of the present application.

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act dated 31.07.2018 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant alleging therein that cheque no.0014542 dated 06.07.2018 of Rs. 15,00,000/- of Canera Bank, Branch Iradat Nagar, Agra was given by the applicant to the opposite party no.2. The said cheque was deposited in the bank account of the complainant on 06.07.2018 which stood dishonored on 06.07.2018 with the comment 'Insufficient Balance in the Account'. The complainant through his lawyer gave a notice dated 11.07.2018 through a registered post to the accused. Despite the said notice, the accused has not paid the money. A complaint has thus been filed. The trial court summoned the applicant vide its order dated 26.11.2018 under section 138 N.I. Act to face trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt upon the applicant. The criminal proceedings are with malafide intentions and abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the story as narrated by the opposite party no.2 in the complaint is a totally false, frivolous and a concocted story. The proceedings as initiated against the applicant are abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the proceedings as such be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the cheque issued by the applicant in favour of the complainant stood dishonored. Despite service of notice the said payment has not been done to the complainant. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The order summoning the applicant does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings is thus refused.

8. In the last, the learned 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. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. : 2010(5) SCC 663 and M/s. Meters & Instrument Private Ltd. & Another v. Kanchan Mehta: (2018) 1 SCC 560. It is argued that the Apex Court 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 submitted 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