August 14, 2019:
Supreme Court Bench of Justice R Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna dealt with the case of cheque bounce under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where it ruled that incase a settlement is arrived at between the parties at the initial stage of the trial then no fine shall be imposed on the parties in terms of apex court decision in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, 2010 Latest Caselaw 332 SC.
The bench was hearing an appeal preferred by the Accused against the the order of the High Court where by Section 482 CrPC petition preferred by the the accused was dismissed.
As against the outstanding dues of Rs.94.87 Lakhs, parties arrived at a out of Court settlement for Rs.14 lacs and the same was paid before the matter came up for hearing before the Supreme Court.
The bench made following observations-
In view of settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The summons issued to the appellants shall stand quashed.
In Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, 2010 Latest Caselaw 332 SC Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued following Guidelines-
In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:- THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority.
Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority.
Read the Full Text of the Order here-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1210 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 4692/2019
RITESH AJMERA .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DAINIK BHASKAR AND ORS. .. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 1011/2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 4693/2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1212 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 4691/2019
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The first respondent-complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Indore based on four dishonored cheques, the description of which are as under :
1. Cheque No. 521356 dated 20.07.2019 for Rs. 10,53,500/-
2. Cheque No. 521355 dated 17.07.2015 for Rs. 10,53,500/-
3. Cheque No. 063210 dated 06.07.2015 for Rs. 9,80,000/-
4. Cheque No. 521352 dated 06.07.2015 for Rs. 10,53,500/-
3. The learned Magistrate prima facie found that there are sufficient grounds for taking cognizance of the offence and directed issuance of summons to the appellant-accused.
4. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate for issuance of summons, the appellants have filed the quash petitions before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the quash petitions by holding that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and that the trial Court was right in taking cognizance of the offence and there are no grounds to interfere with the order of issuance of summons. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed these criminal appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the appellant and the respondents have settled the matter in terms of the settlement dated 08.07.2019. The terms of the settlement reads as under :
"That the Respondent No. 2 has entered into settlement dated 08.07.2019 with the Respondent No. 1, the terms of the settlement Deed is as under :
"This is with reference to the meeting held on 08.07.2019 at our office and subsequent discussions we had with regard to settlement
of Advertisement outstanding to Rs. 94,87,735/- we would like to inform you that, we had mutually agreed upon settlement of same on Rs. 14,00,000/- The cheque No. 172696 dated 08.07.2019 of Axis Bank Ltd. is provided and hence, settled in full. We further,
like to inform you that upon clearing of aforesaid cheque the legal proceedings will be commenced to be withdrawn"
That the Respondent No. 1 has received the amount as mentioned in the Settlement Deed Rs. 14,00,000/-"
6. Since the parties have amicably settled the matter at the stage of issuance of summons itself, there is no necessity of imposing cost as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, 2010 Latest Caselaw 332 SC.
7. In view of settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and these appeals are allowed. The summons issued to the appellants shall stand quashed.
..................J .
[ R. BANUMATHI ]
...................J.
[ A.S. BOPANNA ]
NEW DELHI,
AUGUST 06, 2019.
Picture Source :
