Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 202 (GUJ)

Dilipbhai Keshavlal Sejpal v. State of Gujarat

2022-02-03

GITA GOPI

body2022
JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. All these petitions involve identical questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, original accused, have challenged the orders passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot below application Exhibit-1 dated 16.03.2019 in the Criminal Cases instituted by the respondent-original complainant, which came to be confirmed by the orders passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dated 26.02.2020 in the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the petitioners-original accused. 3. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020 are the same; whereas, the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020 is also same and happens to be the Wife of the petitioner in the earlier two petitions. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, the issue relates to two disputed cheques worth Rs. 42.50 Lacs each whereas, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020, the disputed cheques are worth Rs. 37.50 Lacs each. For the aforesaid four cheques, four different complaints came to be filed, the details of which are shown in a tabular form hereunder: In Criminal Case No. Cheque No. and Date Amount 1. Spl. Cr. App. No. 5010 of 2020 Criminal Case No. 4388 of 2019 No. 044346 dated 12.01.2019 Rs. 42.50 Lacs 2. Spl. Cr. App. No. 5126 of 2020 Criminal Case No. 4389 of 2019 No. 044338 dated 12.01.2019 Rs. 42.50 Lacs 3. Spl. Cr. App. No. 5108 of 2020 Criminal Case No. 4390 of 2019 No. 407980 dated 12.01.2019 Rs. 5 Lacs 4. Spl. Cr. App. No. 4981 of 2020 Criminal Case No. 4391 of 2019 No. 407979 dated 12.01.2019 Rs. 37.50 Lacs 4. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020, the facts are that petitioner-Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal, who is the wife of Dilipbhai Keshavlal Sejpal, viz. the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. 37.50 Lacs 4. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020, the facts are that petitioner-Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal, who is the wife of Dilipbhai Keshavlal Sejpal, viz. the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, had executed a registered Agreement to Sell dated 11.08.2015 in respect of a residential property constructed over non-agricultural land ad-measuring 72.32 square metres situated on southern side of Plot No. 35 paiki of Revenue Survey Nos.92 and 93 paiki of Village: Raiya with the respondents-Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara and Sunil Vrujlal Shah after accepting earnest money of Rs. 5 Lacs and had also accepted Rs. 75 Lacs on the same day. However, as petitioner-Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal had failed to act in terms of the said agreement, the Agreement to Sell dated 11.08.2015 was cancelled by executing a registered Cancellation of Agreement to Sell document dated 20.02.2018 and also executed a document for Cancellation of part payment of consideration amount. In pursuance thereof, petitioner- Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal issued three cheques viz. (i) No. 407980 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 5 Lacs in joint names of respondents-Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara and Sunil Vrujlal Shah (ii) No. 407978 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 37.50 Lacs in favour of respondent- Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara and (iii) No. 407979 dated 12.01.2019 of Rs. 37.50 Lacs in favour of respondent-Sunilbhai Vrujlal Shah. When the aforesaid cheques were deposited in the Bank, the same were returned with the endorsement of “Funds Insufficient” on 21.02.2019. The respondents issued statutory demand Notice dated 22.02.2019 to the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act wherein, the respondent-complainant raised a claim of Rs. 80 Lacs being the amount of three cheques and an additional amount of Rs. 10 Lacs towards Legal Consultation/Advocate Fees. The said Notice was received by the petitioner on 23.02.2019 and when the petitioner failed to make the demand raised, the impugned complaints came to be filed. 4.1 In Special Criminal Application No. 5108 of 2020, the impugned complaint being numbered as Criminal Case No. 4390 of 2019 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs in connection with cheque No. 407980 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 5 Lacs issued by the petitioner. 4.1 In Special Criminal Application No. 5108 of 2020, the impugned complaint being numbered as Criminal Case No. 4390 of 2019 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5 Lacs in connection with cheque No. 407980 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 5 Lacs issued by the petitioner. Whereas, in Special Criminal Application No. 4981 of 2020, the impugned complaint being numbered as Criminal Case No. 4391 of 2019 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 37.50 Lacs in connection with cheque No. 407979 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 37.50 Lacs issued by the petitioner. 5. While in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, briefly stated, the facts are that petitioner-Dilipbhai Keshavlal Sejpal and respondent No. 2-Sunil Vrajlal Shah are Goldsmiths and had business relations. It appears that the petitioner had executed two different agreements to sell dated 02.02.2016 and 09.03.2016 in favour of the respondent-complainant and one of his relatives, namely Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara, in respect of two properties bearing Flat Nos. 401 and 201 situated at “Sadguru Sadan” and known as Municipal Employees’ Society, which is constructed over the land bearing Plot No. 40, Revenue Survey No. 449 and 451 paiki, Rajkot for consideration of Rs. 35 Lacs and Rs. 40 Lacs respectively. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner also accepted earnest money of Rs. 75 Lacs from the respondent No. 2. 5.1 It appears that the petitioner had failed to act in terms of the agreements to sell and therefore, on 21.11.2016, legal Notice was issued to the petitioner. As the petitioner had shown his unwillingness to execute the sale deeds, the agreements to sell were cancelled and thereafter, the petitioner issued two cheques, viz. No. 44337 dated 26.11.2016 and No. 44339 dated 26.11.2016 of Rs. 37.50 Lacs each drawn on Bank of India, Kalawad Road Branch, Rajkot, in favour of the respondent-complainant. However, when the cheques were presented in the Bank, they got dishonored on 29.11.2016 for the reason- “insufficient funds.” Therefore, the respondent No. 2 issued statutory Notice dated 13.12.2016 under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”) to the petitioner, which was duly served upon the petitioner. However, when the cheques were presented in the Bank, they got dishonored on 29.11.2016 for the reason- “insufficient funds.” Therefore, the respondent No. 2 issued statutory Notice dated 13.12.2016 under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the N.I. Act”) to the petitioner, which was duly served upon the petitioner. 5.2 It appears that to avoid legal proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise and an agreement came to be executed on 16.03.2017 whereby the petitioner accepted the factum of having received Rs. 75 Lacs from respondent No. 2 by executing a Payment Receipt and also agreed to pay additional Rs. 10 Lacs towards the loss/damages sustained by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, another compromise agreement was executed between the parties, in pursuance of which the petitioner issued two cheques (i) bearing No. 044344 dated 17.04.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs drawn on Bank of India, Kalavad Road Branch, Rajkot in favour of the respondent-complainant and (ii) No. 044345 dated 17.04.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs drawn on the same Bank in favour of said Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara. It appears that the petitioner again failed to act as per the compromise agreement entered into between the parties. 5.3 Thereafter, the parties appear to have entered into another compromise agreement dated 14.07.2017 whereby, the period of making payment was extended. In pursuance of such agreement, two cheques (i) No. 044341 dated 16.08.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs drawn on Bank of India, Kalawad Road Branch, Rajkot in favour of respondent-complainant and (ii) No. 044342 dated 16.08.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs drawn on the same Bank in favour of said Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara, were issued by the petitioner. However, before the said two cheques could be deposited, the petitioner requested the respondent-complainant not to present the cheques as he was in need of money for the treatment of his father and assured the respondent-complainant that he would issue two new cheques of the said amounts. Therefore, a supplementary compromise agreement dated 12.02.2018 came to be executed between the parties and thereafter, the petitioner issued two cheques (i) No. 044346 dated 12.01.2019 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs in favour of respondentcomplainant and (ii) No. 044338 dated 16.08.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs in favour of Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara. Therefore, a supplementary compromise agreement dated 12.02.2018 came to be executed between the parties and thereafter, the petitioner issued two cheques (i) No. 044346 dated 12.01.2019 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs in favour of respondentcomplainant and (ii) No. 044338 dated 16.08.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs in favour of Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara. When the respondent-complainant deposited the cheques, the same was returned with the endorsement of “insufficient Funds.” The respondent-complainant, therefore, issued statutory Notice dated 20.02.2019 to the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act wherein, the respondent-complainant raised a claim of Rs. 85 Lacs being the amount of two cheques and an additional amount of Rs. 10 Lacs towards Legal Consultation/Advocate Fees. The said Notice was received by the petitioner on 21.02.2019. However, the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amounts and therefore, the impugned complaints came to be filed. 5.4 In Special Criminal Application No. 5010 of 2020, the impugned complaint being numbered as Criminal Case No. 4388 of 2019 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 42.50 Lacs in connection with cheque No. 044346 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 42.50 Lacs issued by the petitioner. Whereas, in Special Criminal Application No. 5126 of 2020, the impugned complaint being numbered as Criminal Case No. 4389 of 2019 was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 42.50 Lacs in connection with cheque No. 044338 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 42.50 Lacs issued by the petitioner. 6. On the above complaints, the trial Court passed order dated 16.03.2019 below Exhibit-1 by which it directed the issuance of process under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against both the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred revision applications before the Sessions Court; however, the same came to be rejected vide order dated 26.02.2020. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Jasani appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint is not maintainable inasmuch as there is no “enforceable debt” which the respondent-complainant is entitled to claim. He pointed out that the amount mentioned in the impugned complaint exceeds the original demand raised by the respondent-complainant and therefore, the claim raised in the impugned complaint cannot be said to be towards the legally enforceable debts. The original demand of the respondent-complainant was on the basis of two agreements to sell and the claim is that he had paid an amount of Rs. 75 Lacs to the petitioner and his father. The original demand of the respondent-complainant was on the basis of two agreements to sell and the claim is that he had paid an amount of Rs. 75 Lacs to the petitioner and his father. In connection with the said demand of Rs. 75 Lacs, it has been alleged that in the year 2016, two cheques of Rs. 37.50 Lacs each were issued in favour of the respondent-complainant and the said two cheques, having been dishonored, the respondent-complainant had initiated proceedings under the N.I. Act. 7.1 It was contended by learned advocate Mr. Jasani that the original demand was of Rs. 75 Lacs and thereafter, on three different occasions, different cheques were issued in favour of the respondent in pursuance of the settlement between the parties. However, the present proceedings arise on the demand of Rs. 85 Lacs and not on the original demand of Rs. 75 Lacs. Thus, the demand raised in the statutory Notice exceeds the original demand of Rs. 75 Lacs and on this ground itself, the impugned complaints are not maintainable in the eyes of law. 7.2 Learned advocate Mr. Jasani drew attention of the Court to the averments made in the impugned complaints to submit that the original demand was of Rs. 75 Lacs. However, on account of settlement between the parties, fresh cheques were issued in favour of the respondent-complainant. He contended that any subsequent cheque issued on the basis of settlement/compromise would not create any new liability, if such settlement/compromise did not fructify at first place and such liability would not fall within the purview of Section 138 of the N.I. Act since such cheque/s cannot be said to have been issued for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt. As per the version of the respondent-complainant, the amount of cheques is of Rs. 85 Lacs, but the demand raised is for Rs. 95 Lacs, i.e. more by Rs. 10 Lacs. Therefore also, the impugned complaints filed by the respondent-complainant are not maintainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside at the threshold. 7.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jasani placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Lalit Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (5) SCC 638 and Vijay Gopala Lohar vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Ghorpade and Another, AIR 2019 SC 3272 . 8. Learned advocate Mr. 7.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jasani placed reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Lalit Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008 (5) SCC 638 and Vijay Gopala Lohar vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Ghorpade and Another, AIR 2019 SC 3272 . 8. Learned advocate Mr. Brij Sheth appearing for the respondent-complainant submitted that the complaints in question are pending at the stage of issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. which order has been confirmed by the revisional Court. He contended that the trial Court has ordered issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. as it had found a prima facie case against the petitioners on the basis of the averments made in the impugned complaints. Whether or not the impugned complaints are maintainable is a matter to be adjudicated during the course of trial where the petitioners would get every opportunity to agitate their rights and to raise contentions. Hence, the present proceedings arising out of the order passed by the trial Court under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and confirmed by the revisional Court is premature in nature. It was, accordingly, urged that the present petitions may be dismissed. 9. Heard learned advocates on both the sides. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, there is no quarrel on the issue that the respondent-complainant had paid Rs. 75 Lacs to the petitioner as consideration for the purchase of two residential flats. The said payment was made by the respondent-complainant in pursuance of two different Agreements to Sell dated 02.02.2016 and 09.03.2016 executed by and between the petitioners and the respondent-complainant. It appears that the petitioner had failed to perform his part of the obligation under the agreements and therefore, on 21.11.2016, the respondent-complainant had issued statutory notice to the petitioner. However, the parties arrived at some settlement and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner issued two cheques of Rs. 37.50 Lacs each, totalling Rs. 75 Lacs, in favour of the respondent. However, both the cheques got dishonored on the ground of “insufficient funds.” Therefore, statutory Notice dated 13.12.2016 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was issued by the respondent-complainant raising a demand of Rs. 75 Lacs, which was duly served upon the petitioner. 10. 37.50 Lacs each, totalling Rs. 75 Lacs, in favour of the respondent. However, both the cheques got dishonored on the ground of “insufficient funds.” Therefore, statutory Notice dated 13.12.2016 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was issued by the respondent-complainant raising a demand of Rs. 75 Lacs, which was duly served upon the petitioner. 10. Before the proceedings could move further, the parties appear to have reached at some settlement and executed a settlement agreement dated 16.03.2017 whereby, the petitioner had agreed to compensate the respondent-complainant by paying an additional amount of Rs. 10 Lacs towards loss/damages, over and above the amount of Rs. 75 Lacs and in pursuance of such agreement, the petitioner had issued two different cheques of Rs. 42.50 Lacs each, totalling Rs. 85 Lacs, in favour of the respondent-complainant. 11. It appears that the petitioner could not fulfill the terms of settlement agreement dated 16.03.2017 and requested the respondent-complainant to execute a fresh settlement agreement, which came to be executed on 14.07.2017. In pursuance of said agreement dated 14.07.2017, the petitioner again issued two cheques of Rs. 42.50 Lacs each in favour of the respondent-complainant. However, before the two cheques could be deposited, the petitioner requested the respondent-complainant not to present the cheques in the Bank on the ground of meeting the medical expenses of his father, who was reported to be ill, which was agreed to by the respondent-complainant. Therefore, the parties executed another settlement agreement dated 12.02.2018, in pursuance of which, the petitioner again issued two cheques of Rs. 42.50 Lacs each in favour of the respondent-complainant. 12. From the above set of facts, it is clear that after the dishonor of the two cheques of Rs. 37.50 Lacs each dated 26.11.2016, the respondent-complainant had issued statutory Notice against the petitioners under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Thereafter, the parties had executed compromise/settlement agreements on three different occasions, i.e. on 16.03.2017, 14.07.2017 and 12.02.2018. However, the petitioner could not abide by the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreements and therefore, after the dishonor of cheques issued by the petitioners in pursuance of the settlement agreement dated 12.02.2018, the respondent-complainant issued statutory Notice to the petitioner dated 20.02.2019 raising demand of Rs. 85 Lacs, which was duly served upon the petitioner on 21.02.2019. However, the petitioner could not abide by the terms of the aforesaid settlement agreements and therefore, after the dishonor of cheques issued by the petitioners in pursuance of the settlement agreement dated 12.02.2018, the respondent-complainant issued statutory Notice to the petitioner dated 20.02.2019 raising demand of Rs. 85 Lacs, which was duly served upon the petitioner on 21.02.2019. A copy of the demand Notice dated 20.02.2019 is produced on record vide Annexure-E wherein, all the above facts have been narrated in unequivocal terms. 13. It is true that originally, the claim of the respondent-complainant was Rs. 75 Lacs. However, when the petitioner could not honor the two cheques of Rs. 37.50 Lacs, which led to the issuance of statutory Notice dated 13.12.2016 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the respondent-complainant raising a demand of Rs. 75 Lacs, the petitioner arrived at a compromise with the respondent-complainant and executed the settlement agreement dated 16.03.2017 whereby, the petitioner agreed to pay additional amount of Rs. 10 Lacs towards loss/damages, over and above the claim of Rs. 75 Lacs, meaning thereby that the petitioner had agreed to pay Rs. 85 Lacs to the respondent-complainant. In view of the aforesaid factual aspects, it is not open for the petitioner to now contend that the claim of Rs. 85 Lacs raised in the statutory Notice dated 20.02.2019 exceeds the original claim of Rs. 75 Lacs since the additional amount of Rs. 10 Lacs is an outcome of the settlement agreement dated 16.03.2017 duly executed by and between the parties and which has not been disputed by the petitioners. 14. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020 also, which has been filed by the Wife of the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, similar is the position. In these cases, the registered Agreement to Sell dated 11.08.2015 came to be cancelled by executing a registered agreement dated 20.02.2018 for Cancellation of the Agreement to Sell. It was in pursuance thereof that the petitioner in these cases had issued the three cheques, as referred to in the earlier part of this judgment and on being dishonored, the statutory demand Notice dated 22.02.2019 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be issued wherein, the respondent-complainant had raised a claim of Rs. It was in pursuance thereof that the petitioner in these cases had issued the three cheques, as referred to in the earlier part of this judgment and on being dishonored, the statutory demand Notice dated 22.02.2019 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be issued wherein, the respondent-complainant had raised a claim of Rs. 80 Lacs being the amount of three cheques and an additional amount of Rs. 10 Lacs towards Legal Consultation/Advocate Fees. The said Notice was received by the petitioner on 23.02.2019 and when the petitioner failed to make the demand raised, the impugned complaints came to be filed. Thus, the claim raised in the said two criminal complaints are towards the legally enforceable debts. 15. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down in the case of Vijay Gopala Lohar vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Ghorpade’s (supra) that the notice issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has to be for the cheque amount and not for any other amount. In the statutory Notice dated 20.02.2019, the respondent-complainant has raised a claim of Rs. 85 Lacs, which is the amount of cheque and has expressly stated that a failure to make such payment within the due period would lead to initiation of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner has also been made liable to pay Legal Consultation/Advocate Fees of Rs. 10 Lacs, which has not been demanded. Thus, the statutory Notice dated 20.02.2019 issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act clearly makes a bifuraction between the cheque amount of Rs. 85 Lacs and the Legal Consultation/ Advocate Fees of Rs. 10 Lacs. The said fact is evident from paragraphs-8(a) and 8(b) of the statutory Notice dated 20.02.2019. Thus, it cannot be said that the statutory Notice is defective in nature. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects and the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, this Court finds no merit in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner that the statutory Notice dated 20.02.2017 does not reflect any “enforceable debt” or that the claim raised in the notice exceeds the actual demand. 16. In Lalit Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the facts were that a Company, named M/s. Mediline India (P) Ltd. had taken loan of Rs. 5 Lacs from the complainant. Against the said loan, two cheques for Rs. 3 Lacs and Rs. 16. In Lalit Kumar Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the facts were that a Company, named M/s. Mediline India (P) Ltd. had taken loan of Rs. 5 Lacs from the complainant. Against the said loan, two cheques for Rs. 3 Lacs and Rs. 2 Lacs were issued in favour of the complainant. On presentation, both the cheques were returned upaid with the remarks - “insufficient funds.” Therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and other sections came to be filed. It was the say of the appellants that they were not signatories to the cheques and that on the date when the two cheques were issued, they had already resigned from the post of directorship of the Company. During the pendency of the complaint, the parties appeared to have arrived at some compromise whereof, it was agreed that if a cheque of Rs. 5,02,050/- is issued, then the complaint would be withdrawn. Pursuant thereto, a cheque of such amount dated 29.07.2000 was issued in favour of the complainant; however, on presentation, it was returned with the remarks “insufficient funds.” The complainant filed another complaint with regard to return of cheque dated 29.07.2000 not only against the erstwhile Directors but also against the present appellants. On the above facts, the Apex Court held that the second cheque dated 29.07.2000 was issued in terms of the compromise and it did not create a new liability and therefore, the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt, even if the compromise had not fructified. 16.1 The facts in the above-referred case and the facts of the cases on hand are different. In that case, on the dishonor of two cheques of Rs. 3 Lacs and Rs. 2 Lacs, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be registered. Whereas, in the present case, no complaint was registered on the dishonor of the initial two cheques. On dishonor of the initial two cheques, the respondent-complainant had issued statutory Notice to the petitioner dated 13.12.2016 under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Before the complaint could be registered, the parties entered into a compromise and a written agreement came to be executed on 16.03.2017. On dishonor of the initial two cheques, the respondent-complainant had issued statutory Notice to the petitioner dated 13.12.2016 under section 138 of the N.I. Act. Before the complaint could be registered, the parties entered into a compromise and a written agreement came to be executed on 16.03.2017. As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, the parties had executed three different compromise agreements at different times; however, none of them fructified and on dishonor of the subsequent two cheques, viz. (i) No. 044346 dated 12.01.2019 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs and (ii) No. 044338 dated 16.08.2017 of Rs. 42.50 Lacs, the respondent-complainant issued statutory notice dated 20.02.2019 under section 138 of the N.I. Act and ultimately, the complaint came to be registered. Thus, in the decision relied upon by learned advocate for the applicant, compromise was arrived at between the parties during the pendency of complaint; whereas, in the present case, the complaint came to be registered only on the failure of the third compromise agreement dated 12.02.2018 and thus, the debt became legally enforceable. 17. This Court is in complete agreement with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below and hence, find no reasons to entertain these petitions. Before parting, this Court finds it necessary to state that the first claim by way of statutory notice was raised in the year 2016 and for all these years, the petitioners have been successful in depriving the respondent-complainant of his legitimate rights to claim his legally enforceable debt. Hence, appropriate directions deserve to be issued to the trial Court concerned to dispose of the case expeditiously. 18. For the foregoing reasons, all the petitions are dismissed. Since the claim is of the year 2016, the trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the proceedings pending before it and to dispose of the same within a period of One Year from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Rule is discharged. FURTHER ORDER: After the judgment was pronounced, learned advocate Mr. Jasani for the petitioners prayed to stay the operation of this judgment for a reasonable period. However, in view of the observations made in paragraph-17 of this judgment, the said request made by the learned advocate is rejected.