Vandana Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

1- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 through video conferencing. 2- This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing the summoning order dated 18.10.2021 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 338 of 2020 (Dharmendra Singh Vs. Smt. Vandana), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Banda pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Banda. 3- It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that mandatory provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act has not been complied with by opposite party no. 2. The cheque in question was not issued by the applicant in favour of opposite party no. 2 against any existing debt or liability. On 22.05.2020, the applicant went to Bank for withdrawing some amount but unfortunately, her bag was missing from there in which her Aadhar Card and some blank and signed cheques were kept. With regard to the said missing, a report was lodged by the applicant on 26.05.2020. Referring to the entire evidence and material available on record, it is submitted that the entire allegations 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. 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-applicant cannot be considered at this stage. 5- I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 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 appears 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 applicant 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. 6- In the last, learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant 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 guidelines have also been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7- As requested by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is directed that the accused/applicant 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) as also the latest amendment made in the Act in the year 2018 within a period of five 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. 8- 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 applicant. 9- It is made clear that no application for extension of time shall be entertained if this order is not availed by the applicant in the stipulated period of time. 10- With the aforesaid observations/directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of. Order Date :- 21.1.2022 Shubham