TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being derived from M.Cr.C.No.9113/2016. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings on the ground of one time settlement, pending against them in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Bhopal in R.T.No.2487-A/2004 (M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Som Power Private Ltd & others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1881' for the sake of brevity). (2) Shorn of unnecessary facts, the brief facts of the case is that M/s Som Power Pvt. Ltd is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....WO CRORES EIGHTY SEVEN LAKHS TWENTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE SIXTY TWO ONLY 2,87,23,562 (vi) The aforesaid cases filed under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' are still pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. (3) It is urged by counsel for the petitioners that this petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. He submits that except six complaint cases, no recovery proceedings are initiated or pending till date against 'M/s SPPL'. However, right to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount under the provision of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is available to the respondent and if they so require they can initiate such proceeding in accordance with law.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent submits that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that petition is to be allowed accepting the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, suitable amount of compensation be given to the respondent-complainant. (7) On behalf of the petitioners strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta), reported in 2018(1) SCC 460, in which the Supreme Court has observed that in a matter of complaint filed under Section 138 of Act, 1881 the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged, but is not debarr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made liable to prosecution on dishonour of cheque with safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers. It is basically made to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The nature of offence as comes under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' is primarily related to a civil wrong but the same is made compoundable. Though, proceedings under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' could not be treated as civil suits for recovery, the scheme of the provision, providing for punishment with imprisonment or with fine which could extend to twice the amount of the cheque or to both, made the intention of law clear. The complainant could be given not only the cheque amount, but double the amount so as to cover interest and costs. Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. iv) Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pending or to remand the same to the trial court only for the sake of making a formal application by the accused-petitioners before the Court below, so as to pass an order for quashing the proceedings. (12) However, I am not inclined to accept the submissions made by counsel for the respondent as in the existing facts and circumstances of the case said submissions does not appear to be reasonable and justified. Considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Mehta(supra), submissions made by counsel for the respondent is hereby rejected. (13) These petitions are pending before this Court since 2016 and by virtue of order passed by this Court on 22/11/2021, the proceedings of complaint cases were stayed. From the....