Allahabad High Court
Maharukh Suraliwalla And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47335
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10729 of 2025
Applicant :- Maharukh Suraliwalla And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Chopra,Pankaj Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Mishra as well as Sri Nitin Chopra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicants for quashing the order dated 06.03.2025 and 04.05.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2024 (Maharukh Suraliwalla and another Saurabh Saxena) pending in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Gautam Buddh Nagar under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Police Station Beta 2, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 against the applicants, pursuant whereto a conviction order stood passed on 08.04.2024 and an appeal stood preferred by the applicants being Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2024 in which the Court of Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, proceeded to pass an order requiring the applicants to deposit 20% of the fine of Rs.45 lacs, within 60 days to the State, which was directed to be retained in the State Exchequer. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that questioning the said order, the applicants preferred Application u/s 482 No.23457 of 2024, in which on 01.10.2024, the following order was passed:
"1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Uday Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
2.The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Sessions Judge Gautam Buddha Nagar to exempt the 20% fine of Rs. 45,00,000/- and to pay the additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the applicant in compliance of the order dated 04.05.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2024 (Maharukh Zareer Surliwala and another Vs. Saurabh Kumar Saxena) in Complaint Case No.388 of 2022, under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Grater Noida, District Gautam Budha Nagar.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the instant application.
4. Accordingly, which has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
5. In view thereof, instant application is dismissed as withdrawn."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of the Court towards the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Gautam Budh Nagar in Crl. Appeal No.51 of 2024, Mahrukh Zarir Vs. Saurabh Kumar Saxena, whereby the Court of hearing upon the application preferred by the applicant for exempting from depositing 20% of the compensation amount under Section 148 of N.I. Act was rejected. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once there happens to be a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.S. State Industrial Corporation Ltd., (2023)10 SCC 446, then the case of the applicants stood as an exceptional circumstances and the Court ought to have been considered the capability/capacity of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of this Court towards Annexure-6 (page-58 of the paper-book) so as to contend that in ground no.6 which contains the ground for exemption four grounds were taken, namely; a. The Applicant/Accused are facing severe financial hardship and are presently unable to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as ordered by the trial court, b. The both Applicant/Accused are senior citizens and are over 70 years of age and are working in a private company at this age in order to fulfil their basic survival needs, c. The Applicant/Accused are old age senior citizens and have significant medical expenses which further makes it impossible to deposit such a huge amount of twenty percent of fine or compensation, and d. The enforcement of this deposit will cause undue hardship and may result in an inability to pursue the appeal effectively. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the said grounds have not been taken into consideration while passing the order dated 06.03.2025.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that so far as the order dated 04.05.2024 is concerned, the same was subject matter of challenge in Application u/s 482 No. 23457 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.10.2024 and thereafter an application stood preferred and the lower appellate court has decided the said case in light of the judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra) taking into account each and every aspect of the matter.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Plainly and simply, the admitted facts are that the applicants stood convicted. There happens to be an order dated 04.05.2024 requiring the applicants to deposit 20% of the amount, which was subject matter of challenge in Application u/s 482 No.23457 of 2024, which came to be dismissed on 01.10.2024 and thereafter an exemption application regarding deposit of 20% amount was taken note of and heard and ultimately rejected. The order of the lower appellate court dated 06.03.2025 has taken into consideration each and every aspect of the matter and the said order cannot be said to be illegal. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of the Court towards Annexure-9 (page-87 of the paper-book) being the Income Tax Return for the year 2024-25, but on a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicants as to whether the said Income Tax Return was filed along with the exemption application, the answer is that it was not filed.
7. Looking into the totality of the case and also arguments so sought to be advanced, the Court finds that there is adequate consideration in light of the judgment in the case of Jamboo Bhandari (supra).
8. Accordingly, the Court does not find the present case to be a fit case to interfere. Needless to point out that the appeal be decided after hearing the parties.
9. In view of above, the application is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 4.4.2025
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
