YOGESH SURIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16492 of 2026



Yogesh Suri
                                                .....Applicant(s)
                             Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                   :   Meraj Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)              :   G.A.

Court No. - 74


                 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

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

2. This application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing
the impugned summoning order dated 21.08.2024 passed by
the learned Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 7, Agra in complaint case no. 18694 of 2023
(Inspark Technology Vs Yogesh Suri), under section 138 N.I.
Act, related to police station Sadar Bazar, District Agra.

3.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
                                                 NA528 No. 16492 of 2026
                          2


below:-

"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
                                                   NA528 No. 16492 of 2026
                           3


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 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
                                                                                       NA528 No. 16492 of 2026
                                                                 4


                                        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 BNSS has been moved in this Court.

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


                                        April 23, 2026
                                        Nitin Verma

                                                                                   (Deepak Verma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad