SUSHIL SURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which the petitioners have been summoned. Against the summoning orders the petitioners have filed Crl. M.C. No. 2012-15/2006 in which notices have been issued and vide order dated 5.4.2006 this Court has also granted exemption to the petitioners from personal appearance. During the pendency of these proceedings the parties settled the matter and Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.5.2006 has been arrived at between the parties. As per this MOU, the petitioners have to make payment of dues, as agreed, within 23 months. In view of this settlement, the parties moved joint application on 17.10.2006 before the learned MM for adjourning the matter to a date after April, 2008 when the last installment is to be paid as per the schedule fixed in accordance with the settlement. However, the learned MM has dismissed the said application and has ordered issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners except petitioner No.3, who was granted exemption from personal appearance.

(2.) IN these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court for setting aside orders dated 17.10.2006. In the aforesaid backdrop, when the parties have themselves settled the matter and as per the MOU, payments are to be made to the respondent No. 2 within 23 months in monthly installments and the respondent No. 2 is also agreeable for deferring the consideration of the complaint beyond the stipulated period during which installments are to be paid. I fail to understand as to why such a request should not have been entertained by the learned MM, who instead chose to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioners herein. It is kept in mind that proceedings are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are quasi-criminal in nature and when the parties have arrived at settlement, this settlement should be respected by the Court. Order dated 17.10.2006 issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners is accordingly set aside. The learned trial Court may fix dates from time to time for the purpose of monitoring as to whether installments are regularly paid or not. In a matter like this, if the installments are regularly paid, the petitioners should also remain exempted from personal appearance. With the aforesaid direction, these petitions are disposed of.