ORDER J.P. Singh, J.
1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing criminal complaint under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. I have heard Mr. Gurdyal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and have gone through the copies of the documents placed on the file.
2. Three orders dated 31.8.2002, 22.12.2004 and 19.5.2005 are being challenged in this petition. Vide order dated 31.8.2002 the petitioners/accused person were summoned. Vide order dated 22.12.2004 the Metropolitan Magistrate has rejected two applications: (i) for recalling the summoning order and (ii) for holding that the offence should be deemed to have been compounded. In the order dated 19.5.2005 the Metropolitan Magistrate has after hearing the learned counsel for the parties noted that except representative of the company no other accused was present in the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded in the trial court that accused persons could not be informed that they had to remain present in the court because the learned counsel was under the impression that the matter was fixed for disposal of pending applications. The Metropolitan Magistrate then directed that all the accused persons should remain present on the next date of hearing. The petitioners are aggrieved. Hence this petition.
3. Briefly the facts are that the accused company had issued several cheques towards part payment against the outstanding invoices of the complainant- company. The said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.
4. The complainant company therefore filed a petition for winding up of the accused company. It also filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of the said matter a compromise was arrived at and the accused company agreed to pay to the complainant Rs. 8,15,05,360/- through post dated cheques. The civil matter was compromised and the criminal complaint was also withdrawn.
5. In pursuance of the said compromise in the court, the accused company issued several cheques for the agreed amount mentioned above including the cheque in question for Rs. 17 lacs. This cheque was also dishonoured. Now several explanations are being given as to why the compromise arrived at in the court could not be accomplished, but the fact remains that the cheque was dishonoured and on this fresh cause of action the complaint has been filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
6. The summoning order was passed on 31.8.2002, which was as is apparent never challenged and then the two applications were dismissed as mentioned on 22.12.2004 On 19.5.2005 only the directions were given to the petitioner/accused persons to remain present, evidently so that the case may proceed.
7. The above circumstances show that the petitioners have woken up after more than three years to challenge the summoning order. Perusal of the record prima facie shows that exemptions from appearance were granted to the petitioners/accused persons throughout and now when the Metropolitan Magistrate has sought their presence they have rushed to the High Court for stay of the proceedings and quashing of the complaint.
8. At this stage I may mention the following new provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
Amendment Act 55 of 2002 - Statement of Objects and Reasons - The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 wherein a new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. The existing provisions in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, namely sections 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Not only the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the Courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act.
2 ...
3 ...
4 ...
5. The proposed amendments in the Act are aimed at early disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques, enhancing punishment for offenders, introducing electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form as well as exempting an official nominee director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
The above provisions leave no doubt that as a result of the amendments, the matters under Section 138 are to be tried as summary cases and in Sub-section 3 of Section 143 of the Act, there is another direction that trials shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and an endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.
9. Considering all the facts and I do not find any justification for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petition is, therefore, dismissed. The trial court is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously and preferably within three months.