JUDGMENT

Siddharth, J.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 16.09.2022 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 910 of 2022 (Vijay Oberao v. Bushra Khan), under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Meerut pending before Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 5, Meerut. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the entire allegations are false. Cheque in question was not issued against any existing debt or liability. Referring to the entire evidence available on record, it is submitted that the summoning order is illegal and without application of judicial mind. No cause of action arose to file the complaint.

3. On the other hand, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

5. The submissions made by the applicant counsel call for adjudication on pure questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that the 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.

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

7. 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 cases of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. , 2010(5) SCC 663 and Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta , (2017) 10 LAWS(SC) 1 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 litigation, 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 ha