JUDGMENT

Mr. Samit Gopal, J.

List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-Mukesh Singh Yadav with the prayer to quash the Complaint Case No. 1519 of 2022 (Pushpa Shahu v. Mukesh Singh Yadav) under section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi including the NBW order dated 3.4.2023 and summoning order dated 24.3.2022 as well as proceeding of 82 Cr.P.C. and to stay the further proceedings of aforesaid complaint case.

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act dated 24.2.2022 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant alleging therein that Cheque No.015062 dated 20.12.2021 of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Cheque No.015063 dated 5.1.2022 of Rs.2,00,000/- and Cheque No.015064 dated 15.1.2022 of Rs.1,00,000/- were given by the applicant to the opposite party no.2. The said cheques were deposited in the bank account of the complaint which stood dishonored with the comment 'Funds Insufficient'. The same was returned to him with a memo dated 27.1.2022. The complainant then gave a notice dated 3.2.2022 through lawyer to the accused on his addresses through registered post. The notice was received by the accused as sent through registered post. Despite receipt of 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 01.12.2022 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 three cheques issued by the applicant in favour of the complainant stood dishonoured. 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 cognisance 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