Ramveer Singh Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 15765 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:109815
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18641 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Ramveer Singh Verma
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State.

3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Ramveer Singh Verma with the prayer to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 1823 of 2018 (Chandra Prakash Vs. Ramveer Singh Verma) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Iradat Nagar, District Agra pending in the Court of Additional Court, Court No.-II, Agra with a further prayer that proceedings of the aforesaid case be stayed against the applicant during the pendency of the present application.

4. The facts of the case are that a complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act dated 31.07.2018 was filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant alleging therein that cheque no.0014542 dated 06.07.2018 of Rs. 15,00,000/- of Canera Bank, Branch Iradat Nagar, Agra was given by the applicant to the opposite party no.2. The said cheque was deposited in the bank account of the complainant on 06.07.2018 which stood dishonored on 06.07.2018 with the comment 'Insufficient Balance in the Account'. The complainant through his lawyer gave a notice dated 11.07.2018 through a registered post to the accused. Despite the said notice, the accused has not paid the money. A complaint has thus been filed. The trial court summoned the applicant vide its order dated 26.11.2018 u/s 138 N.I. Act to face trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no legal enforceable debt upon the applicant. The criminal proceedings are with malafide intentions and abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the story as narrated by the opposite party no.2 in the complaint is a totally false, frivolous and a concocted story. The proceedings as initiated against the applicant are abuse of process of court. It is further submitted that the proceedings as such be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the cheque issued by the applicant in favour of the complainant stood dishonored. Despite service of notice the said payment has not been done to the complainant. Prima facie case is made out against the applicant. The order summoning the applicant does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. The prayer for quashing of the proceedings is thus refused.

8. In the last, the learned counsel has urged before the Court that the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence involved are such in which the litigating parties should be given a chance to settle this matter amicably and for this purpose some protective direction may be given by this Court so that adequate steps may be taken in furtherance of the same object. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.: 2010(5) SCC 663 and M/s. Meters & Instrument Private Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta: (2018) 1 SCC 560. It is argued that the Apex Court has taken cognizance of the heavy pendency of the cases in the courts which may result ultimately in the chocking of criminal justice system. It has been submitted that with the laudable object of providing the rival parties, who have hitherto locked their horns in litigation, an opportunity to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement and put an end to the escalating litigations, the compounding of the offence has not only been encouraged but in order to given incentive to do so at the earliest stage, certain directions have also been issued by the Apex Court.

9. This Court has considered the last submission made by the learned counsel in the light of the aforesaid case law. It may be relevant to quote the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) which read as follows :-

"17. In a recently published commentary, the following observations have been made with regard to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act [Cited from: Arun Mohan, Some thoughts towards law reforms on the topic of Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act-Tackling an avalanche of cases (New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2009) at p. 5] :

"... 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."

18. 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. There is also some support for the apprehensions raised by the learned Attorney General that a majority of cheque bounce cases are indeed 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. .........

19. As mentioned earlier, the learned Attorney General's submission is that in the absence of statutory guidance, parties are choosing compounding as a method of last resort instead of opting for it as soon as the Magistrates take cognizance of the complaints. 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. If the accused is willing to settle or compromise by way of compounding of the offence at a later stage of litigation, it is generally indicative of some merit in the complainant's case. In such cases it would be desirable if parties choose compounding during the earlier stages of litigation. If however, the accused has a valid defence such as a mistake, forgery or coercion among other grounds, then the matter can be litigated through the specified forums."

10. It is deducible from the Apex Court decision that the submission made by the counsel is not without substance.

11. As requested by the learned counsel, it is 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. On such application being moved, the concerned court may take adequate steps in accordance with law in this regard and shall provide further opportunity to the accused which shall not exceed a maximum period of four months from today to make an endeavour in this direction. Thereafter, the court shall pass necessary orders specifically keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) within a period of five months from today.

12. If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and he is further required to appear and face the trial, the court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law against the accused and take all necessary steps and measures to procure his attendance as the law permits.

13. In the aforesaid period of five months or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be taken against the accused.

14. It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the present applicant.

15. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed off.

Order Date :- 19.5.2023

AS Rathore

(Samit Gopal,J.)