Disposed¶33

Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2026A482/31680/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act; cheque dishonour; quashing; 482 Cr.P.C.; compounding of offence through compromise; mediation failed; disputed questions of fact; Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663; summoning order 21.02.2022; Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2020; Special Magistrate Aligarh; no coercive measures; no extension of time; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with directions: accused to appear before the court below within one month and move a compounding application through compromise; court below to allow endeavour up to four months and pass orders within five months in view of Damodar S. Prabhu; no coercive measures against the accused in the interregnum; no extension of time to be entertained; interim order, if any, stands vacated. ¶33

Subhash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Special Magistrate, Aligarh, and the summoning order dated 21.02.2022 passed therein, should be quashed.

¶9

Court's answer

All contentions raised by counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact; the Court was called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate complications of factual details, with false implication pleaded.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

In view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the accused is directed to appear before the court below within one month through counsel and move an application seeking compounding of the offence through compromise; on such application the court below shall provide opportunity not exceeding four months and pass necessary orders specifically keeping in view Damodar S. Prabhu within five months.

¶24

Key takeaways

If the decision on the compounding application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused, the court below is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law and take steps to procure attendance; and in the period of five months or till such decision, whichever is earlier, no coercive measures shall be adopted against the accused.ratio¶25
No application for extension of time shall be entertained if the order is not availed by the accused within the stipulated period.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) — Application under s.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2020 under s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act (P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh) and the summoning order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the Special Magistrate, Aligarh. Held: the contentions raised related to disputed questions of fact and the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence; mediation (referred by co-ordinate Bench order dated 04.01.2023) had failed per report dated 16.02.2023. Relying on the compensatory-aspect observations of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, the Court disposed of the application directing the accused to appear before the court below within one month and move an application for compounding of the offence through compromise; the court below to permit the endeavour for a maximum of four months and pass orders in view of Damodar S. Prabhu within five months; no coercive measures against the accused meanwhile; no extension of time to be entertained; order confined to the applicant-accused; interim order, if any, vacated.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31680 of 2022

¶3

Subhash Chandra

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

		Versus
State of U.P. and Another				.....	Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	:	M.P.S.	Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:	Nishi Tiwari	Sengar,	G.A., Rakesh	Kumar

¶6

Court No. - 82

¶7

HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

¶8

Heard Sri M.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed praying for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1003 of 2020 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Aligarh, pending before learned Special Magistrate, Aligarh as well as to quash the summoning order 21.02.2022 passed in the aforesaid case.

¶10

On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2023 had referred the matter before Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court for amicable settlement between the parties. The incharge mediation centre of this Court vide its report dated 16.02.2023 has reported that mediation between the parties have failed.

¶11

All the contentions raised by the counsel for the applicant relate to disputed questions of fact. The court has also been called upon to adjudge the testimonial worth of prosecution evidence and evaluate the same on the basis of various complications of factual details which have been touched upon by the learned counsel. The truthfulness and integrity of material furnished on behalf of the prosecution has been questioned and false implication has been pleaded.

¶12

A482 No. 31680 of 2022

¶13

¶14

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010(5) SCC 663 which read as follows :-

¶15

"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] :

¶16

"... 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.

¶17

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

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

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

¶20

A482 No. 31680 of 2022

¶21

¶22

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."

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, the submission made by the counsel is well founded.

¶24

It is thus 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 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.

¶25

If the decision of the Court given in the light of the application does not conclude the proceedings against the accused and they are 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 their attendance as the law permits.

¶26

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

¶27

A482 No. 31680 of 2022

¶28

¶29

be adopted against the accused.

¶30

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

¶31

It is further clarified that for the present this order has been passed only with regard to the accused on behalf of whom this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved in this Court.

¶32

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶33

With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of .

¶34

(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

¶35

April 20, 2026

¶36

S.Ali

¶37

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annu vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Rawat vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr Brijesh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mithlesh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Indra Pal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Piyush Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another