Subhash Chander Makkar vs Surinder Singh Bedi

Sabina, J.—Vide this judgment, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the Criminal Complaint titled "Dr. Surinder Singh Bedi v. Subhash Chander Makkar" CRM No. M-34291 of 2012 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ''Act'') as well as FIR No. 436 dated 04.12.2011 u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ''IPC'') registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City, have arisen out of the same cause of action. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that petitioner had taken loan from the complainant to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- in March, 2010 for domestic purposes. Petitioner had promised to return the said amount by 31.05.2010. However, petitioner had failed to return the said amount. Petitioner had also issued cheque in question dated 15.03.2011 in favor of the complainant qua the said amount. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonored by the bank with the report "account closed". In this regard, complainant filed a complaint under the Act as well as lodged the FIR in question u/s 420 IPC. In the complaint case, petitioner was summoned to face the trial u/s 138 of the Act vide order dated 01.07.2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,10,000/- in the account of the complainant from 03.04.2012 to 17.04.2012. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the pay in slips placed on record issued by the bank. Learned counsel has further submitted that in pursuance to the interim order dated 13.12.2012, passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-37899 of 2012, petitioner had deposited the CRM No. M-34291 of 2012 remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- before the trial court. Since the cheque amount in question had already been paid by the petitioner, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

Learned State counsel as well as counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have opposed the petition and have submitted that criminal proceedings against the petitioner were liable to continue, as he had failed to pay the amount in question within the stipulated period.

In Crl. Misc. No. M-23421 of 2008 titled "Balbir Singh v. M/s. Agganval Mfg. Co., Crl. Misc. No. M-23421 of 2008", it was held as under:-

Heard.

This criminal misc. application has been filed for quashing of a complaint No. 223/2 dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated 31.5.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned trial Court, summoning the accused petitioner.

The amount of the cheque in question in respect of which the offence u/s 138 of the Act is alleged to have been committed as Rs. 17,000/-. The accused-petitioner is ready and willing to pay the said amount and in fact had brought a demand draft for an amount of Rs. 17,000/- on the previous dated i.e. CRM No. M-34291 of 2012, 23.12.2009. However the complainant refused the said amount and pressed for adjudication on merits.

The provisions of Section 147 of the Act which makes all the offences under the Act compoundable and the law laid down to the effect that compounding of the offences under the Act would be permissible even after conviction would indicate the manner in which the Courts should deal with an offence allegedly committed under Act in a situation where the accused is ready and willing to pay the amount of the cheque in question the insistence of the complainant for an adjudication on merits by refusing to accept the amount, itself would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the proceedings against the accused petitioner in complaint No. 223/2 dated 1.4.2013 (Annexure P-2) u/s 138 of the Act and the order dated 31.05.2003 (Annexure P-3), summoning the accused-petitioner should be quashed in the interest of justice subject to the condition that the accused-petitioner will deposit the bank draft of Rs. 17,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court within ten days from today. Thereafter the said bank draft may be received by the complainant.

Consequently, this application is allowed and the proceedings in complaint No. 223/2 dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) u/s 138 of the Act and the order dated 31.5.2003 (Annexure P-3) shall stand quashed.

In the present case, admittedly, petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,10,000/- in the account of the complainant from 03.04.2012 to 17.04.2012. Pay in slips issued by the bank, in this regard, have been placed on record. A perusal of the said slips reveals that petitioner had deposited Rs. 40,000/- on 03.04.2012 and had deposited Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- in the account of the complainant on 12.04.2012. Petitioner had further deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- in the account of the complainant on 17.04.2012. The remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- was also deposited by the petitioner before the trial court in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-37899 of 2012.

Thus, in the present case, entire cheque amount has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. In these, circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose and would rather be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Criminal Complaint titled "Dr. Surinder Singh Bedi v. Subhash Chander Makkar" u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 CRM No. M-34291 of 2012 (in short ''Act'') as well as FIR No. 436 dated 04.12.2011 u/s 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ''IPC'') registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar City are quashed.