A landmark ruling emerged from the hallowed chambers of the Supreme Court, echoing through the corridors of legal discourse. Delving into the intricacies of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the apex court declared that once a resolution materializes, and the complainant endorses an accord acknowledging the stipulated sum as complete and conclusive settlement, the legal machinery orchestrating proceedings under this provision must come to an abrupt halt.
Surveying the panorama of facts and nuances intrinsic to the case, the bench, comprised of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, articulated their stance. “Considering the holistic tapestry of events, once a settlement crystallizes, and the complainant affixes their signature to the document endorsing a specific amount as comprehensive reparation for the default and the fines levied by the Trial Court, the Section 138 proceedings necessitate termination,” remarked the juridical duo.
The appeal in question contested the edict pronounced on September 13, 2017, by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla Bench. This decree, upheld by the High Court, had affirmed the culpability of the accused individuals—petitioners in the current case—under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
In the interim, a truce manifested between the involved parties. According to this covenant, the complainant in question consented to accept a specified sum as an all-encompassing settlement for both the dishonored cheque amount and the penalties meted out by the Trial Court, a decision subsequently affirmed by the High Court.
Given these pivotal developments, the Supreme Court, cognizant of the evolving dynamics, accorded validation to the present appeal.
