Facts and Background

• The Appellant, Gimpex Private Limited, supplied goods and entered into three High Seas Sale Agreements with Aanchal Cement Limited (ACL) on 17 and 27 April 2012.
• Respondent Manoj Goel was a director of ACL, which was obligated to repay the appellant approximately Rs. 15 crores (including customs duty and wharfage charges) for goods supplied but failed to make the payments.
• The ACL issued 18 cheques in favour of the appellant dated 8 August 2012, a total of Rs. 9 crores, as part of payment for the outstanding liability. However, these cheques were dishonoured on 21 August 2012 due to insufficient funds. They stopped payments, prompting the appellant to file a complaint against ACL and its directors for offences under Sections 409 and 506(1) of the IPC.
• A complaint was lodged on 10 September 2012, which led to the registration of an FIR on 1 February 2013. Subsequently, the Appellant filed criminal complaints regarding the dishonoured cheques under Section 138 of the NI Act on 22 October 2012 and 6 November 2012.
• In 2013, Sitaram Goel sought to quash complaints against him. At the same time, Mukesh Goel was arrested on 3 March 2013, with a bail application filed on 5 March. After the arrest, ACL approached the appellant for a compromise, which he agreed to on 12 March. Therefore, Mukesh was granted bail, while Sitaram and the respondent received anticipatory bail later.
• On 8 April 2013, ACL and a director filed a suit in the Madras High Court challenging the compromise deed. The interim injunction was issued, but it was rejected on 2 December 2013, and the claim of coercion was dismissed.
• On 14 December 2015, the Supreme Court stayed proceedings related to FIR Crime No. 21/2013. On 15 November 2016, the Madras High Court dismissed the proceedings initiated by Sitaram Goel for quashing the First set of complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act.
• On 16 February 2017, the appellant filed a second complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act due to the dishonor of cheques issued under a compromise deed dated 12 March 2013.
• On 10 March 2017 and 19 August 2017, ACL and its directors sought to quash the first and second complaints under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court quashed the second complaint against ACL and its directors but refused to quash the first set of complaints.
• The High Court refused to quash the first set of complaints on 10 March 2017, leading the ACL to file special leave petitions. On 18 May 2018, the Supreme Court allowed ACL to approach the High Court regarding the coercion claim related to the compromise deed.
• On 14 June 2018, the second complaint was transferred to be tried with the earlier batch of cases. Subsequently, on 19 July 2018, ACL filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the first complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.
• On 18 September 2018, Manoj Goel filed a petition before the Madras High Court to quash the second complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. On 10 April 2019, the High Court dismissed the first complaint proceedings and ordered the Fast Track Court to complete its trial within three months.
• Following the High Court’s judgment, both Gimpex Private Limited and ACL filed special leave petitions against the respective rulings, challenging the quashing of the second complaint and the continuation of the first complaint.

Main Issues:

1. Can parallel prosecutions arising from a single transaction under Section 138 of the NI Act be legally sustained, or is one prosecution required to be quashed to avoid duplicity?
2. After settling with the accused, can a complainant pursue the original complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act? (Paragraph 34)