SUBHASH CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31680 of 2022

Subhash Chandra
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : M.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Nishi Sengar, G.A., Rakesh Kumar
                                Tiwari

Court No. - 82
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Heard Sri M.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
learned AGA for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing
the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2020 under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District
Aligarh, pending before learned Special Magistrate, Aligarh as well as to
quash the summoning order 21.02.2022 passed in the aforesaid case.

3. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 had referred the matter before
Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement
between the parties. The incharge mediation centre of this Court vide its
report dated 16.02.2023 has reported that mediation between the parties
have failed.

4. All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant relate to
disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge
the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on
the basis of various complications of factual details which have been
touched upon by the learned counsel. The truthfulness and integrity of
material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and
false implication has been pleaded.
                                                       A482 No. 31680 of 2022
                               2


5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel in the light of
the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(5) SCC 663 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
                                                         A482 No. 31680 of 2022
                                3


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."

6. In view of the aforesaid, the submission made by the counsel is well
founded.

7. It is thus 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.

8. If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not
conclude the proceedings against the accused and they are 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 their attendance as the law permits.

9. 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
                                                                                           A482 No. 31680 of 2022
                                                                    4


                                    be adopted against the accused.

                                    10. It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be
                                    entertained if this order is not availed by the accused in the stipulated
                                    period of time.

                                    11. It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed
                                    only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s
                                    482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

                                    12. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                    13. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of.



                                                                                 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad