TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Vijay Garg against the petitioner/accused Usha Devi, an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking compounding of the offence on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. In the said application, it was averred that the parties had already settled the matter on 20.05.2019 and the petitioner was making payment of the settled amount as per the agreed schedule. It was further stated that due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the financial condition of the petitioner was adversely affected and the payment schedule could not be adhered to. The petitioner further averred that she was a senior citizen and not keeping good health and was ready to pay the settled amount along with interest on the balance amount. It was further stated that in order to show bona fides, the petitioner had already submitted a demand draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- and four cheques towards the balance amount along with an additional cheque towards interest amount, and it was prayed that the offence be compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Respondent/complainant Vijay Garg filed reply to the aforesaid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pay the settlement amount almost five years after the alleged settlement of the year 2019 could not be accepted in the absence of consent and willingness of the complainant to compound the matter. Accordingly, finding no merit in the application, the same was dismissed by the learned trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned JMIC, Gurugram is wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles governing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is primarily compensatory and quasi-criminal in nature and the object of the provision is to ensure recovery of the amount due rather than to punish the accused. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had throughout shown bona fide intention to settle the dispute and had already paid substantial amounts to the respondent/complainant, including payment of Rs. 17,00,000/- after filing of the complaint, apart from other amounts paid earlier and during the year 2019. It is further contended that the petitioner had moved an application unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lainant vehemently opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner has concealed material facts and has approached this Court without clean hands. It is contended that from the very inception, the petitioner has adopted deliberate delaying tactics only to frustrate the proceedings arising out of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel submits that despite repeated opportunities granted by the learned trial Court, the petitioner intentionally avoided appearance and even sought exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds, compelling the trial Court to observe that the medical certificate appeared to have been procured merely to seek exemption from appearance. Consequently, non-bailable warrants and thereafter proclamation proceedings had to be initiated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the course of trial, an official from Axis Bank appeared as CW-1 and produced statement of account pertaining to the petitioner showing that crores of rupees had been credited into her accounts during the relevant period, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner was financially capable of discharging her liabi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e intent behind the so-called offer for settlement. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that despite availing as many as 14 effective opportunities to lead defence evidence, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence and ultimately the defence evidence was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2024. Even the said order has separately been challenged by the petitioner in revision proceedings, which fact has deliberately not been disclosed in the present petition. It is thus argued that the petitioner has consistently abused the process of law and has been attempting to prolong the matter for several years. 7. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel contends that the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned JMIC, Gurugram is perfectly legal, reasoned and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. versus Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2025(1) RCR (Crimi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yments in terms thereof. Even thereafter, the petitioner continued seeking adjournments and repeatedly adopted dilatory tactics, compelling the learned trial Court to issue non-bailable warrants and even initiate proclamation proceedings. 9. The record further shows that after the complainant evidence had already concluded and the matter had reached the stage of defence evidence and final arguments, the petitioner moved the application seeking compounding of the offence. Significantly, immediately after dismissal of the said application, another application seeking permission to lead defence evidence was moved by the petitioner. Such conduct lends credence to the observations recorded by the learned trial Court that the application for compounding was not moved with genuine intent to settle the dispute, but rather to prolong the proceedings and delay the culmination of trial. Even despite availing numerous effective opportunities, the petitioner failed to conclude defence evidence, resulting in closure thereof by the learned trial Court. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the learned trial Court was bound to permit compounding merely because the petitioner ex....