Have you recently faced a bounced cheque, either from your check or one received from someone else? If so, you are likely aware of the lengthy court proceedings involved in such cases. Addressing this issue, the Supreme Court has provided a valuable recommendation aimed at alleviating the burden of court visits in cheque bounce matters. This advice is intended to benefit both the general public and the administration, including lower courts, by offering a more efficient resolution to these cases.
A significant number of cheque bounce cases are currently pending in courts across the country, prompting the Supreme Court to express serious concern over the increasing burden on the judicial system. During the hearing of one such case, Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and A. Amanullah offered recommendations for the expedited resolution of these cases.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice A. Amanullah, after hearing the cheque bounce case, Amanullah's bench canceled the sentence of a person named P. Kumaraswamy, who was accused in the case. The bench found in its observation that a settlement has been reached between the two parties in the check bounce case. The complainant has been paid Rs 5.25 lakh by the other party.
During this time, the Supreme Court said, "A large number of cases related to check bounces are pending in the courts. This is a matter of serious concern for the judicial system in the country. Keeping this in mind, priority should be given to the way to settle them and not the way to punish." The Supreme Court said that the courts should work to promote settlement within the ambit of the law if both parties are willing to do so.
This advice from the Supreme Court can be useful not only in check bounce cases but also in settling cases when a dispute arises over all kinds of legally written promissory notes. In the order passed on July 11, the bench also said that compoundable offenses are those in which a settlement can be reached between the rival parties. We have to remember that check bouncing is a regulatory offense that has been brought under the category of crime only in view of public interest so that the credibility of the relevant rules can be ensured.