Partly allowed

M/S M.S.Company and Another v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2022A482/7210/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to quash a summons and proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The court allowed time for amicable settlement and directed the accused to move an application for compounding before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Time granted to the accused to appear and seek compounding of offence; no coercive measures during the specified period.

M/S M.S.Company and Another Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7210 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- M/S M.S.Company And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Kumar,Rajeev Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

¶5

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. /opposite party No.1 and perused the record.

¶6

2- This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for quashing the impugned summoning order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer Additional Court No.2, Agra in Case No.2446/2020 (M/S A.R.S. Company vs. M/S M.S. Company) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra and entire proceeding of the Case No. 2446/2020 (M/S A.R.S. Company vs. M/S M.S. Company) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra, pending before the Presiding Officer Additional Court No.2, Agra.

¶7

3- It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the entire allegations against the applicants are false. The summoning order is illegal and has been passed without application of judicial mind. No cause of action arose to file the complaint in question.

¶8

4- Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate supported the order of the learned court below by contending that the summoning order is well reasoned. The prosecution case as mentioned in the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. The defence of the accused-applicants cannot be considered at this stage.

¶9

5- I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants call for adjudication on pure questions of fact, which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial Court and while doing so even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial Court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper and, therefore, cannot be

¶10

persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by the Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that perusal of the complaint, and also the material available on record make out a prima facie case against the accused at this stage and there appear to be sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. I do not find any justification to quash the complaint or the summoning order or the proceedings against the applicants arising out of them as the case does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which may justify their quashing. The prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the Court's process either.

¶11

6- In the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged before the Court that the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of offence involved are such in which the litigating parties should be given a chance to settle this matter amicably and for this purpose some protective direction may be given by this Court so that adequate steps may be taken in furtherance of the same object. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 and M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 and further submitted that the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases has taken cognizance of the heavy pendency of the cases in the courts which may result ultimately in the chocking of criminal justice system. It has been 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 to 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 stage, certain directions have also been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶12

7- As requested by learned counsel for the applicants, 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. 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 two months from today to make an endeavour in this direction. Thereafter, the court shall pass

¶13

necessary orders specifically keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex 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 three months from today. If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and he is 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 his attendance as the law permits.

¶14

8- In the aforesaid period of three months or till the decision given in the light of the application, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicants.

¶15

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

¶16

10- With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. Order Date :- 19.7.2022

¶17

Monika

¶18

Digitally signed by MONIKA KESARWANI Date: 2022.07.19 16:58:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S M.S.Company and Another v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S M.S.Company and Another v. State of U.P.and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Tiwari Vs State of U.P.and Another

P.C. Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Gupta @ Sonu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Patwa and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Goyal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhanshu Bhatnagar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others