ORDER

Shree Prakash Singh, J.

Sri Upendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to mistake, he has impleaded the court as opposite party no. 1. He submits that he may be allowed to delete the opposite party no. 1 from the array of opposite parties during the course of the day.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the contention aforesaid.

3. Prayer is allowed and the learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to delete the opposite party no. 1 from the array of opposite parties during the course of the day.

4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

5. Instant application under section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to direct the opposite party no. 1, the Additional Court No. 1, Lucknow for speedy disposal of Case No. 532 of 2019, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station-Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow, within the stipulated period as this court may think fit.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the matter pertains to section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He added that there was a civil dispute of certain transaction of money in between the parties and thereafter a complaint was lodged under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 which is pending consideration since the year 2019. He submits that due to pendency of the aforesaid complaint, the present applicant is being harassed as he has to appear on each and every date. Thus, this court may be pleased enough to direct the court concerned to expedite the matter within stipulated period of time.

7. After some arguments, learned counsel for the applicant lastly submits that present applicant is not involved in committing any kind of offence whatsoever has been submitted in the compliant. Matter, if any, raised by opposite party no. 2 is of a civil dispute and that can very well be settled by way of filing a Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:704 civil suit. He submits that offence under section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable offence and it seems that under certain misconception, the aforesaid criminal case has been lodged by the opposite party no. 2 and therefore, an opportunity may be granted to the present applicant to sit together and amicably settle the dispute between the parties.

8. I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the applicant and in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. 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 proce