2021 (9) TMI 557 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court directs expedited trial, emphasizes fairness and cooperation

The High Court of Madras disposed of the petition by directing the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings, accommodating the merits of the case and ... Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - threat and coercion - mis-utilisation of funds - jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code - HELD THAT:- The fact in the present case is not in dispute that there was a Memo of Compromise between the parties dated 24.07.2014. It is the claim of the petitioner that by force and intimidation, the said Memo of Compromise was entered into between the parties. Further it is admitted by the petitioner that she had issued two cheques bearing No. 578187 and 578186, as security towards the vehicle loan obtained by the husband of the petitioner. However as per the Memo of Compromise, the petitioner is liable to the respondent for a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- - On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondent that there is a legally enforceable debt against the petitioner as clearly mentioned in the Memo of Compromise to pay the balance amount of ₹ 12,17,680/-. Though it is the case of the petitioner that she has discharged her legal liability towards the loan obtained by her husband, however, the memo of compromise entered into between the parties stares at the petitioner. Though it is the case of the petitioner that the said memo of compromise has been obtained from her by way of threat and coercion and the cheque had been misutilised by the respondent, however, those are points that have to be canvassed by the petitioner at the time of trial and this Court, sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into the merits of the case - this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings pending before the Court below. This petition is disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of as expeditiously as possible as per seniority of the case. Issues:1. Quashing of impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 1684 of 2018.2. Validity of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.3. Enforcement of the Memo of Compromise dated 24.07.2014.4. Request for expedited trial and dispensation of petitioner's appearance.Issue 1: Quashing of Impugned Proceedings:The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1684 of 2018, alleging coercion and misuse of blank cheques by the respondent. The petitioner claimed to have repaid the loan, but the respondent misused the cheques leading to legal complications. The petitioner argued that the prosecution based on an invalid cheque is unsustainable as per Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner relied on the case of Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs. Gulshan Rai to support this contention.Issue 2: Validity of Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act:The respondent contended that a legally enforceable debt existed as per the Memo of Compromise dated 24.07.2014. The respondent claimed the petitioner owed a balance amount, supported by the dishonored cheque issued by the petitioner. The respondent argued that the petitioner's liability under Section 138 of the NI Act could not be denied, emphasizing the outstanding balance due from the petitioner.Issue 3: Enforcement of Memo of Compromise:The court noted the existence of a Memo of Compromise between the parties, dated 24.07.2014. The petitioner alleged coercion in signing the memo and misuse of the cheques by the respondent. However, the court stated that the veracity of these claims should be determined during the trial. The court emphasized that factual disputes and evidence appreciation are matters for trial, not for adjudication under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Issue 4: Request for Expedited Trial and Dispensation of Appearance:The petitioner's counsel requested an expedited trial and dispensation of the petitioner's appearance, except for specific trial stages. The court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, allowing the parties to raise all grounds during trial. The petitioner's appearance before the trial court was dispensed with, except for crucial trial stages, where presence might be necessary as per the trial court's discretion.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras disposed of the petition, directing the trial court to expedite the trial, considering the merits of the case and cooperating with the parties. The court dispensed with the petitioner's appearance except for essential trial stages, ensuring fair proceedings and adherence to legal procedures.