Court No. - 68
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8040 of 2019 Applicant :- Mahaim Mittal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.
Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.2459 of 2012 (Mohd. Parvez Vs. V.H. Engineers), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, P.S. Greater Noida, District Gautam Budhha Nagar and order dated 1.4.2013 whereby, the appellant has been summoned for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, Mahaim Mittal is not the proprietor of V.H. Engineers; the applicant has not signed on the cheque; the cheque has not been issued against any existing debt or liability. He submits that the summoning order is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
The complainant, Mohd. Parvez filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act regarding dishonour of cheque, the applicant failed to pay the amount of cheque despite the service of notice. After considering the complaint, statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., learned trial court summoned the applicant for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant cannot be adjudicated upon at this stage and the same be considered by the trial court. The law regarding sufficiency of material which may justify the summoning of an accused has been considered in a catena of decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "R.P. Kapoor Vs. State of Punjab", AIR 1960 SC 866 has summarized the categories of case where inherent power can be exercised to quash the proceedings In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any ground to quash the criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case and the order of summoning the applicant at this stage.
Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings of the aforesaid case and the order of summoning the applicant, are declined.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that considering the nature of offence in which, parties are litigating, it is appropriate that a chance be given to the applicant to settle the matter amicably. He requests for the said purpose, some protection may be given to the applicant so that adequate steps may be taken for the same. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of Apex Court given in the case of "Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.", 2010 (5) SCC 663 and "Meters and Instruments Private Limited Vs. Kanchan Mehta", LAWS (SC) 2017 10 1 and submits that the Apex Court decision has taken cognizance of the heavy pendency of the cases in the courts which may result ultimately in the choking of criminal justice system. He has urged 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 state, certain directions have also been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In view of the above, as requested by learned counsel for the applicant, it is provided that the applicant may appear before the trial court within a period of one month from today through the authorized counsel and move an appropriate application for compounding of the offence. On such application being filed, the trial court may take adequate steps in this regard, in accordance with law. The trial court will consider the said request and make an endeavour to decide the same expeditiously within a period of four months from today. Thereafter, the trial court shall pass necessary orders keeping in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) as also the latest amendment made in the Act in the year 2018 within a period of five months from today.
In case, the proceedings are not concluded and the applicant is required to appear and face the trial, the trial court shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and take all necessary steps and measures to procure the attendance of the applicant according to law.
Till the aforesaid period of five months or till the decision given by the trial court in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant.
It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by the applicant within the stipulated period of time. It is also clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to the applicant, Mahaim Mittal who has filed the present application.
With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed of.
(Ved Prakash Vaish, J.) Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Vivek Kr.