Court No. - 1
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24791 of 2018 Applicant :- K.P. Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Nitin Srivastava,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 6.2.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3 in Complaint Case No. 1888 of 2014 (Cadila Pharmaceutical vs K.P. Singh), by which he summoned the present applicant for facing trial under Section 138 N.I. Act pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 3, District Kanpur Nagar.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the matter may be settled amicably between the parties, if it is referred to the Allahabad Mediation Centre because both the parties were in long standing relationship, hence, compromise may be arrived at between the parties in the light of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663. The paragraph no. 21 of the said judgment is as follows:-
21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. 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.
Perused the summoning order. As per this order, a Cheque No. 741460 dated 7.9.2009 of an amount of Rs. 11,63,333/- issued by the accused-applicant to the opposite party no. 2 got bounced and, therefore, the court below has found a case made out under Section 138 N.I. Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the impugned order does not require to be quashed as no illegality has been indicated therein.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, dismissed.
The court below is directed to decide this case in the light of guidelines laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) in paragraph 21 of the judgment, within a period of six months from today.
A copy of this order be immediately transmitted to the court concerned for compliance.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 A.P. Pandey