Disposed

Krishnapal Singh Tomar v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024A482/25280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court application under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash an order and stay proceedings in a cheque bouncing case. Relying on Damodar S. Prabhu guidelines, the court permitted the applicant to file a compounding application within 15 days upon depositing 10% of the cheque amount at a specified university account. Coercive action was stayed pending this.

What did the court decide?

Permitted applicant to file compounding application with 10% deposit within 15 days; stayed coercive action; directed trial court to decide compounding application within one month if filed.

Krishnapal Singh Tomar vs State of Up and 2 Others — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190123

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 25280 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Krishnapal Singh Tomar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Madhusudan Dikshit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Madhusudan DIkshit, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 2.8.2023 passed by Additional Judge, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 5871 of 2023 ( Roshanpal vs. Krishnapal Singh Tomar ), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Bhaurakalan, District Muzaffar Nagar and stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is ready to settle the dispute and wants to file compounding application u/s 147 of the Act, 1881 before the trial court. The Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 had observed that if the accused person under the proceeding of 138 of the Act, 1881 did not file the application for compounding on the first date or on the second date, then the court may permit him to file compounding application with the cost of 10% of the cheque amount.

¶9

Apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) has issued following guidelines, paragraph no.21 of the said judgement is being quoted as under:

¶10

"21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:

¶11

THE GUIDELINES

¶12

(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

¶13

(a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of

¶14

the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.

¶15

(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit.

¶16

(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

¶17

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount."

¶18

In view of the above, applicant is permitted to move an application for compounding u/s 147 of the Act, 1881 along with the receipt of deposit of 10% of the cheque amount, payable to Dr. Rajendra Prasad, National Law University, Prayagraj , within a period of 15 days.

¶19

In case, the applicant files the application along with the aforesaid deposit within 15 days, then the court below will pass order on that application within a period of next one month.

¶20

For a period of one month or till disposal of the above application of the applicant, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear, if applicant fails to file the aforesaid application with required deposit within 15 days from today, then the court below will be free to proceed against the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Vandana

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Krishnapal Singh Tomar v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnapal Singh Tomar v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abrar Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhinay Verama vs State of U.P. and Another

Informant vs State of Upand Another

Irshad and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Munni Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajkumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another