Litigants’ Conduct In Keeping Dispute Alive For Mala Fide Reasons Keeps The Court's Docket Heavy: Delhi HC Quashes Cheque Bounce Case
The Delhi High Court quashed a cheque bounce case observing that the conduct of a litigant in keeping a dispute alive for mala fide reasons was what kept the “docket of the Courts heavy.”
The Court noted that the petitioner, despite having paid the amount, was made to suffer and litigate for more than eight years due to the dishonest attitude of the complainant.
A Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “The High Court, while exercising power under Section 482 of the CrPC, can definitely look into the record and pass such orders that may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is apparent that the petitioner, despite having paid the amount has been made to suffer and litigate for the last more than eight years due to dishonest attitude of the complainant.”
Advocate Adit S. Pujari represented the petitioner, while A.P.P. Utkarsh appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the order of the trial court which dismissed the petitioner’s application for discharge despite a settlement agreement between the parties.
The trial court, in its impugned order, decided to proceed with the trial, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Pandhi (2005), which supported the continuation of trials despite settlement agreements, as the veracity of such agreements would be seen during the course of trial.
The petitioner contended that the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), should be discontinued as the disputes had been resolved through mediation. The petitioner had also made payments to the complainant in accordance with the settlement reached at the Mediation Centre.
The Court noted that the complainant after having accepted the money, was trying to re-agitate the entire proceedings and even succeeded in keeping the proceedings pending since the year 2016.
“The conduct of the litigants to keep the dispute alive for mala fide reasons has the tendency of keeping the docket of the Courts heavy to the detriment of other litigants whose cases have been pending for years together,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal complaint against the petitioner and directed the complainant to pay costs of Rupees fifty thousand to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Ashok Kumar v. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4860)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Adit S. Pujari, Shaurya Mittal and Pallavi Chatterjee
Respondents: A.P.P. Utkarsh; Advocates Tanuj Khurana and Abhishek Rawat
