2022 (8) TMI 1196 - HC - Indian Laws

Court emphasizes settlement in cheque bounce case, rejects quashing plea, allows compromise

The court declined to quash the complaint or summoning order under Section 138 N.I. Act, finding no abuse of court process. Emphasizing the importance of ... Dishonor of Cheque - existence of legally chargeable debt against the applicant, or not - validity of summon order - sufficient material present or not, for issuance of summon order - whether the present criminal proceedings are otherwise not maintainable for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the N.I. Act? - 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 applicants' 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 - there are no justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicants 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. Thus, 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 - application disposed off. Issues:Challenge to summoning order under Section 138 N.I. Act and proceedings in complaint case.Analysis:The applicant challenged the summoning order dated 6.4.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act. The applicant's counsel contended that the criminal proceedings were malicious and an abuse of court process, emphasizing the absence of a legally chargeable debt against the applicant. The counsel argued that the proceedings were not maintainable due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.I. Act, raising disputed questions of fact and questioning the veracity of prosecution evidence and false implication.The court noted that it should not engage in a detailed inquiry at this stage but only require a prima facie satisfaction of sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Referring to various apex court decisions, the court highlighted categories that may justify quashing a complaint, emphasizing that the case did not fall within those categories. The court emphasized that a pre-trial examination should not take place, and the trial court was better suited to adjudicate on factual and legal points raised by the applicant's counsel.Considering the nature of the offence and the heavy backlog of cases in the judicial system, the court acknowledged the importance of encouraging settlements to alleviate the burden on the courts. Citing the Apex Court's observations on the compensatory aspect of remedies in cheque bounce cases, the court directed the accused to appear before the lower court within a month to seek compounding of the offence through compromise. The lower court was instructed to provide an opportunity for settlement within a specified timeframe, after which coercive measures could be taken if necessary.In conclusion, the court refused to quash the complaint or summoning order, finding no abuse of court process. The court highlighted the importance of encouraging settlements in appropriate cases to expedite justice delivery and reduce the burden on the legal system. The order was passed specifically for the accused mentioned in the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and coercive measures were prohibited for a specified period unless the accused failed to settle the matter within the given timeframe.