The Allahabad High Court was hearing an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the Order issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicants.
Facts:
All the contentions raised by the applicants' counsel related to disputed questions of fact. The High Court had been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various intricacies of factual details which had been touched upon by the counsel. The veracity and credibility of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution had been questioned and false implication had been pleaded.
High Court’s observations
The Court observed 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.
Relying upon a catena of Supreme Court Judgements, the Allahabad High Court stated that,
“The cases where the allegations made against the accused or the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer do not constitute any offence or where the allegations are absurd or extremely improbable impossible to believe or where prosecution is legally barred or where criminal proceeding is malicious and malafide instituted with ulterior motive of grudge and vengeance alone may be the fit cases for the High Court in which the criminal proceedings may be quashed.”
The bench further relied upon a Judgement given by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., wherein it was observed that,
“Unlike that for other forms of crime, the punishment here (in so far as the complainant is concerned) is not a means of seeking retribution, but is more a means to ensure payment of money. The complainant's interest lies primarily in recovering the money rather than seeing the drawer of the cheque in jail. The threat of jail is only a mode to ensure recovery. As against the accused who is willing to undergo a jail term, there is little available as remedy for the holder of the cheque.
If we were to examine the number of complaints filed which were `compromised' or `settled' before the final judgment on one side and the cases which proceeded to judgment and conviction on the other, we will find that the bulk was settled and only a miniscule number continued.
It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect.”
It was further observed by the Apex Court, in the above-mentioned case, that a majority of cheque bounce cases are being compromised or settled by way of compounding, albeit during the later stages of litigation thereby contributing to undue delay in justice delivery. The problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute.
“One explanation for such behaviour could be that the accused persons are willing to take the chance of progressing through the various stages of litigation and then choose the route of settlement only when no other route remains. While such behaviour may be viewed as rational from the viewpoint of litigants, the hard facts are that the undue delay in opting for compounding contributes to the arrears pending before the courts at various levels,” the top court had stated.
High Court held:
The High Court adverted to the entire record of the case, stating that 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. The HC did not deem it proper, and therefore couldn’t be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins.
The bench held that the that the perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record made out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appeared to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
The bench 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. The application was disposed off.
Read the Order:
