MANOJ KUMAR MAURYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15774 of 2026



Manoj Kumar Maurya
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Shailendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

Court No. - 74


                    HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the
State.

2. This application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant for
quashing the summoning order dated 03.02.2026 passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Meerut in Complaint Case
No.1030 of 2026 (Uttam Kumar Maurya vs. Manoj Kumar Maurya),
under section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kankarkheda, District Meerut,
pending the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3,
Meerut.


3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant and
complainant are real brothers. It is submitted by learned counsel for
applicant that there is money dispute between the parties and opposite
party no.2 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the
applicant. It is further submitted that since there is some dispute regarding
payment of money and as such there is a good chance of amicable
settlement of dispute through compromise.


4. Learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on a judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663. The relevant paragraphs
no.17, 18 & 19 are quoted herein below:-


"17. In a recently published commentary, the following observations have
been made with regard to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the
                                                          NA528 No. 15774 of 2026
                               2

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
                                                                                                  NA528 No. 15774 of 2026
                                                                       3

                                        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."


                                        5. As requested by the 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 and deposit 10% of cheque amount. 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.


                                        6. If the applicant does not appear before the trial court for compounding
                                        of offence through compromise, then he is required to appear and face the
                                        trial and 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.


                                        7. 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 adopted against the accused.


                                        8. It is further clarified that this order has been passed only with regard to
                                        the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. has been
                                        moved in this Court.


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


                                        April 20, 2026
                                        SKD
                                                                                                (Deepak Verma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SURJIT KUMAR DEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad