9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enience, the facts are being derived from M.Cr.C.No.9113/2016. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings on the ground of one time settlement, pending against them in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Bhopal in R.T.No.2487-A/2004 (M.P.State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. M/s Som Power Private Ltd & others) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1881' for the sake of brevity). (2) Shorn of unnecessary facts, the brief facts of the case is that M/s Som Power Pvt. Ltd is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 ( "M/S SPPL" for the sake of brevity) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal. (3) It is urged by counsel for the petitioners that this petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioners. He submits that except six complaint cases, no recovery proceedings are initiated or pending till date against 'M/s SPPL'. However, right to initiate proceedings for recovery of the amount under the provision of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is available to the respondent and if they so require they can initiate such proceeding in accordance with law. He urged that total amount under 8 cheques which are subject matter of 6 complaint cases filed under Section 138 of 'Act, 1881' is Rs. 2,87,23562/- as against principal amount of Rs. 2,00,000,00/-(two crore) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complainant. (7) On behalf of the petitioners strong reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Meters and Instruments Private Limited and another Vs. Kanchan Mehta), reported in 2018(1) SCC 460, in which the Supreme Court has observed that in a matter of complaint filed under Section 138 of Act, 1881 the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged, but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court. The Supreme Court has further observed that though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 138 of 'Act 1881' is primarily related to a civil wrong but the same is made compoundable. Though, proceedings under Section 138 of 'Act 1881' could not be treated as civil suits for recovery, the scheme of the provision, providing for punishment with imprisonment or with fine which could extend to twice the amount of the cheque or to both, made the intention of law clear. The complainant could be given not only the cheque amount, but double the amount so as to cover interest and costs. Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C provides for payment of compensation for the loss caused by the offence out of the fine. Where fine is not imposed, compensation can be awarded under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C to the person who suffered loss. The anot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused. iv) Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143, to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed, is to be exercised after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel for the respondent as in the existing facts and circumstances of the case said submissions does not appear to be reasonable and justified. Considering the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanchan Mehta(supra), submissions made by counsel for the respondent is hereby rejected. (13) These petitions are pending before this Court since 2016 and by virtue of order passed by this Court on 22/11/2021, the proceedings of complaint cases were stayed. From the averments made in the petition, it is clear that on earlier occasion also petitioners had made a proposal before the Court for settling the case, but somehow it could not be materialized. (14) Adverting to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I do not find an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
