GIMPEX Pvt. Ltd. vs. MANOJ GOYAL
Criminal Appeal No. 1068 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6564 of 2019)
Bench of Justice Dr. D Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, B.V. Nagarathna.
Question of Law:- Whether parallel proceedings can sustain regarding both the first and the second complaints under NI Act after settlement has been done?
Facts of the case:- The appellant entered into a sale of goods agreement with Aanchal Cements Ltd. (ACL) under which ACL requested the appellant to pay customs duty of Rs. 6.96 crores and wharf age charges of Rs. 8.04 crores to clear the goods. The appellant had alleged that ACL had promised to repay the amount with interest, which the appellant did by issuing 18 cheques on August 8, 2012 and all these 18 cheques were dishonored on August 21, 2012 with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. After which an F.I.R was filed against the respondent and other directors of ACL after which in 2013 Manish Goel (one of the respondents) was arrested. He immediately applied for bail and during the pendency of his bail hearing; the respondent approached the appellant to settle the matter outside the court and on March 12, 2013 the respondents and the appellants entered into a settlement deed. The cheques issued by the respondents in pursuance of the said deed were also dishonored after which the appellants filed a second complaint under section 138 of the NI Act; the respondents filed two separate proceedings before the Madras High Court to quash the both the proceedings filed against them under section 138 of the NI Act. Subsequently the case went on numerous other petitions were also filed, and finally the High Court quashed the proceedings filed against the respondent with respect to the second complaint. The appellant aggrieved by this filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India, the judgment of which is discussed hereunder.
Observed:- SC observed that if circumstances are such that it is expedient for the parties to settle the matter outside of the court and they agree to a settlement deed and also the consequences of non-compliance of the deed; then after such non-compliance of the deed the complainants cannot proceed with both the previous complaint of dishonour and the second complaint. The Court stated that non-compliance with the deed attracts fresh and independent proceedings under relevant sections of CR.P.C, I.P.C and NI act. The Court also observed that if this interpretation was not provided it would discourage out of court settlements and increase the burden on the judiciary. Hence, the Court ruled that two parallel proceedings cannot be allowed.
Follow our PLC India Page on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Koo, You Tube.