TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act by respondent No.2 against the present petitioner on 2/7/2007. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh sentenced the petitioner for six months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,30,000/- was imposed against which an appeal was preferred ie., No. 231/2007 and a settlement took place between the parties in Lok Adalat on 25/7/2008. Both the parties agreed to withdraw the pending litigations and in terms of the settlement a condition of payment of Rs. 3,51,750/- by cheque dt. 31/12/2008 of State Bank of India, Shujalpur Branch was given to the respondents. The present petitioner was signatory to the aforesaid cheque. Later on the cheque was presented for encashment on 2/2/2009 and the same was returned with an endorsement "Please Cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... judgment of conviction was also delivered by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narsingarh. Fine was also imposed. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction ie., No. 231/2007 and both the parties in Lok Adalat, on 25/7/2000, have agreed to withdraw pending litigation. A cheque was also given in the light of the settlement of Rs. 3,51,750/- and the same has been dishonoured. The second complaint has been preferred on account of dishonour of the second cheque. The apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma (supra), in paragraph 11 to 17 has held as under : 11. Section 138 of the Act reads, thus: "138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account Where any cheque drawn by a person on an ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Explanation-For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." 12. It is not disputed that in respect of the first cheques dated 30.11.1999 and 10.12.1999, the appellants herein were not proceeded against. It is furthermore not in dispute that although a purported compromise was entered into by and between Ashish Narula, Manish Arora, on the one hand, and the complainant, on the other, as a result whereof the said cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,02,050/- was issued and bounced; the complaint petition had not been withdrawn. By a judgment and order 16.01.2006, Ashish Narula and Manish Arora had been found guilty for commission of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. They w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in this matter by the complainant and in her statement U/s 200 of Cr.P.C., complainant has clearly stated that Manish Arora, Ashish Narula and L.K. Sharma and Bela Narula and wife of L.K. Sharma were directors of the company. All the five accused persons demanded loan of Rs. Five Lakh Two Hundred Fifty from the complainant for some time and promised her to return the said money soon. All the five persons have been equally involved in the dealing of giving and receiving the cheque." 15. Evidently, therefore, the second cheque was issued in terms of the compromise. It did not create a new liability. As the compromise did not fructify, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt. 16. Ingredients of Section 138 o....