DEEPAK MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20280 of 2026

Deepak Mishra
                                                                  .....Applicant(s)
                                      Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Arvind Kumar Dubey, Sandeep Kumar
                                Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 74
                      HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

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

2. The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the
impugned Summoning order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in Complaint Case No. 87683 of 2023
(Smt. Manisha Vs. Deepak Mishra), Under section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, Police Station- Panki, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in
the court of Judicial Magistrate, VII, Kanpur Nagar.

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 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
                                                                 NA528 No. 20280 of 2026
                                     2


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 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."
                                                                                              NA528 No. 20280 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    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 has been moved in this Court.

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



                                                                                                (Deepak Verma,J.)
                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Meenu Singh




Digitally signed by :-
MEENU SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad