Section 138 cheque disputes may proceed only for interest and costs after principal payment, with appearance exemption maintained.

In Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings, where the cheque amount has been paid by RTGS and only interest and costs remain disputed, the matter may be left for assessment before the trial court rather than closed outright. The text notes that the compensatory and settlement-oriented character of such proceedings was considered, together with later limits on the unconditional use of Section 258 CrPC in complaint cases. It also records that the accused persons could continue to remain exempted from personal appearance while the trial court determines the remaining monetary components and proceeds towards early closure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be closed despite the complainant's objection when the cheque amount had been paid by RTGS and only interest and costs remained in dispute. (ii) Whether the petitioners' presence could continue to remain exempted and the matter be directed to the trial court for assessment of interest and costs.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be closed despite the complainant's objection when the cheque amount had been paid by RTGS and only interest and costs remained in dispute.

Analysis: The settlement-oriented scheme of Section 138 proceedings and the compensatory character of the offence were considered. The court noted that payment of the cheque amount had already been made and that the dispute survived only on the quantum of interest and costs. At the same time, it was taken into account that later legal developments had limited the unconditional use of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in complaint cases under Section 138. In that background, instead of closing the proceedings finally, the matter was directed to be worked out before the trial court for assessing the amount payable towards interest and costs.

Conclusion: Closure of the criminal proceedings at that stage was declined, and the issue was left to be addressed by the trial court through assessment of interest and costs.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners' presence could continue to remain exempted and the matter be directed to the trial court for assessment of interest and costs.

Analysis: Since the cheque amount had already been paid and the controversy survived only on ancillary monetary components, the court considered it appropriate that the parties approach the trial court through their advocates for determination of interest and costs. The personal presence of the petitioners was not insisted upon, and the earlier interim relief was effectively maintained to facilitate expeditious consideration by the trial court.

Conclusion: The petitioners were permitted to continue to be exempted from personal appearance, and the trial court was directed to assess the interest and costs and take steps for early closure of the matter.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of with directions facilitating determination of the remaining monetary issue before the trial court, while preserving the relief against personal appearance.

Ratio Decidendi: In Section 138 proceedings, where the cheque amount has been paid and only interest or costs remain disputed, the court may decline immediate closure but direct the parties to seek assessment of the remaining amount before the trial court while granting appropriate procedural reliefs such as exemption from appearance.

---