2020 (9) TMI 1064 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds summoning order in Section 138 Complaint Case, emphasizes prima facie satisfaction. Accused urged towards amicable settlement.

Kunal Kapoor Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

The court declined to quash the summoning order and proceedings in a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Emphasizing the need for prima ... Dishonor of Cheque - validity of summoning order - HELD THAT:- 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 submissions made by the applicant's 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. As requested by the counsel, it is directed that the accused may appear before the court below within a period of one month from today through the representing counsel and move an application seeking compounding of offence through compromise. On such application being moved the concerned court may take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a maximum period of four months from today to make an endeavour in this direction - In the aforesaid period of five months or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused. Application disposed off. Issues Involved:- Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash summoning order and proceedings in a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act- Sufficiency of material justifying summoning of accused and court's decision to proceed- Legal principles regarding quashing of complaints or charge sheets- Request for settlement of matter amicably through compounding of offenceAnalysis:1. The applicant sought to quash the summoning order and proceedings in a Complaint Case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court noted that the contentions raised related to disputed questions of fact, questioning the veracity of prosecution evidence and alleging false implication. The court emphasized that only a prima facie satisfaction of the court about the existence of sufficient grounds to proceed in the matter is required, as settled in various legal precedents.2. The court referred to several decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose, Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonker, and Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, to expound on the legal aspects regarding the sufficiency of material to justify summoning of accused. It was highlighted that the court should not embark on a roving enquiry into the case details and should avoid determining the ultimate outcome of the case at the initial stage.3. The judgment also discussed the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify the quashing of a complaint or charge sheet, citing cases like R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab and State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. The court emphasized that cases where allegations do not constitute an offence, are absurd or legally barred, or are maliciously instituted may be fit for quashing. The court found that the present case did not fall within these recognized categories.4. Furthermore, the court addressed the request for amicable settlement through compounding of the offence. Referring to the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., the court highlighted the importance of prioritizing the compensatory aspect over the punitive aspect in cases of dishonour of cheques. The court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a specified period to seek compounding of the offence, emphasizing the need for timely resolution to avoid undue delay in justice delivery.5. The court's order provided a timeline for the accused to pursue compounding of the offence, ensuring that coercive measures would not be taken during the specified period. The court's decision was made in light of the legal principles and precedents discussed throughout the judgment, aiming to facilitate a fair and expeditious resolution of the matter.By considering the legal principles, precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case, the court addressed the issues raised by the applicant comprehensively, ensuring a balanced approach to the proceedings and the request for amicable settlement through compounding of the offence.