U.U. Lalit JUDGMENT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. Leave granted. These appeals have been preferred against the order dated 21st April, 2017 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRLM Nos. 13631, 13628 and 13630 of 2017. The High Court rejected the prayer of the Appellants for compounding the offence Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act) on payment of the cheque amount and in the alternative for exemption from personal appearance.
2. When the matters came up for hearing before this Court earlier, notice was issued to consider the question "as to how proceedings for an offence Under Section 138 of the Act can be regulated where the Accused is willing to deposit the cheque amount. Whether in such a case, the proceedings can be closed or exemption granted from personal appearance or any other order can be passed." The Court also appointed Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior Counsel to assist the Court as amicus and Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counsel to assist the amicus. Accordingly, learned amicus has made his submissions and also filed written submissions duly assisted by S/Shri Rishi Malhotra, Ravi Raghunath, Dhananjay Ray and Sidhant Buxy, advocates. We place on record our appreciation for the services rendered by learned amicus and his team.
3. Few Facts: The Respondent Kanchan Mehta filed complaint dated 15th July, 2016 alleging that the Appellants were to pay a monthly amount to her under an agreement. Cheque dated 31st March, 2016 was given for Rs. 29,319/- in discharge of legal liability but the same was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds. In spite of service of legal notice, the amount having not been paid, the Appellants committed the offence Under Section 138 of the Act. The Magistrate vide order dated 24th August, 2016, after considering the complaint and the preliminary evidence, summoned the Appellants. The Magistrate in the order dated 9th November, 2016 observed that the case could not be tried summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed and be tried as summons case. Notice of accusation dated 9th November, 2016 was served Under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure
4. Appellant No. 2, who is the Director of Appellant No. 1, made a statement that he was ready to make the payment of the cheque amount. However, the complainant declined to accept the demand draft. The case was adjourned for evidence. The Appellants filed an application Under Section 147 of the Act on 12th January, 2017 relying upon the judgment of this Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. MANU/SC/0319/2010 : (2010) 5 SCC 663. The application was dismissed in view of the judgment of this Court in JIK Industries Ltd. v. Amarlal V. Jumani