High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36042 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36868 of 2024 Applicant :- M/S Gurudev Steels Through Proprietor Sri Rajeev Jain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Amit Daga,G.A. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, assisted by Sri Balbeer Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 48385 of 2016 (M/s Hari Vandana Vs. M/s Gurudev Steels and others) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station- Kakadeo, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of Presiding OfÏcer, Additional Court-II, Kanpur Nagar. 3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that 19 cheques were issued on behalf of M/s Gurudev Steels which were signed by his proprietor, Rajeev Jain in discharge of liability as consideration of certain land regarding which three sale deeds were also executed subsequently. On presenting these cheques, same were returned by the bank with the endorsement "fund insufÏcient". Thereafter, 19 complaints were filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of above 19 cheques. The impugned proceeding is regarding bouncing of one of the cheques having number 001221 dated 27.06.2016 of Rs.97,087/-. During the pendency of those 19 cases, parties orally entered into an agreement dated 18.08.2022 and they also informed the court below on 12.09.2022 that they have settled their dispute. In view of the entire cheque amount, they have decided to settle the dispute for Rs.97,50,000/- and parties also sought time to file formal agreement. This fact was recorded in the order dated 12.09.2022 by the court below. Thereafter, matter was posted on 28.09.2022. On that date, a draft agreement was also filed mentioning that parties have settled all the disputes and in lieu of cheque amount of Rs.1,69,30,205/-, the applicant will pay Rs.97,50,000/- and time was also obtained from the court concerned to file formal agreement. Thereafter, a compounding application was filed by the applicant on 10.10.2023 on the ground that in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the parties, applicant had already paid Rs.65,73,198/- to the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, after taking remaining amount, proceeding may be compounded. This application was contested by the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that aforesaid compromise could not be materialized
Legal Reasoning
between the parties because of non-compliance of certain condition of the aforesaid compromise. It was further mentioned in the objection that above compromise was not signed by the opposite party no. 2 and same was not binding upon her. This compounding application was rejected by the court below vide order dated 29.08.2024 on the ground whether the amount of Rs.65,73,198/- was given towards the payment of Rs.97,50,000/- in pursuance of agreement dated 28.09.2022 or not, same appears to be disputed question of fact that can be decided during trial. This order is under challenge in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the opposite party no. 2 herself admitted before the court below that the compromise has been entered into and in lieu of 19 cheques, the applicant will pay only Rs.97,50,000/- and applicant had also paid Rs.65,73,198/-, therefore, they cannot take u-turn, which will amount to unjust enrichment and prayed that the impugned order may be quashed as same is passed without
Legal Reasoning
applying mind. During court proceedings, learned counsel for the applicant also offered to pay Rs.1,15,00,000/- despite the fact that he had agreed to pay Rs.97,50,000/- towards amount of 19 cheques which was refused by the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that amount of Rs.65,73,198/- was not paid by the applicant towards the cheques amount though he did not dispute the fact that parties at one time settled the dispute but that agreement could not be materialized because the parties failed to honour certain condition of the compromise. 6. Considering the submissions of parties and on perusal of record, it is not in dispute that the court below in its order dated 12.09.2022 and 28.09.2022 has recorded the averments of parties that parties have settled their dispute and they have also filed draft copy though same was not signed by the parties but subsequently, opposite party no. 2 refused to honour the aforesaid oral agreement and did not sign the agreement for certain reason. 7. The question arises if, at any point of time, parties have entered into settlement before the court under proceeding u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act but no written compromise signed by the parties could be filed before the court, if one party takes u-turn and did not agree to settle the dispute through compromise whether the Court can direct for compounding of offence without the consent of complainant. This issue came into consideration before the Apex Court in the case of A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 2539 and the Apex Court observed that compounding and quashing are two different things and the court cannot compel the party to give his consent for compounding offence despite the fact one party has deposited the cheque amount. 8. In the present case also, though the applicant has paid certain amount in compliance of oral agreement between the parties but other party is not ready to compound the offence despite taking that amount on the ground that the amount so transferred by the applicant was towards some other liability not with regard to the cheques. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings. The applicant may take this ground during trial but this plea cannot be a ground to quash the impugned order by which the court below has refused to compound the offence for want of consent of one of the parties. 10. It is further observed that the applicant is free to take appropriate remedy to recover that amount, paid by him to opposite party no. 2, if any. 11. From the perusal of record, it appears that the impugned proceeding has been pending since 2016, therefore, court below is directed to conclude the same expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. 12. The present petition is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 KS Digitally signed by :- KISHAN SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad