Allahabad High Court
Shobhit Tomar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136987
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22265 of 2025
Applicant :- Shobhit Tomar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Srivastava,Shikhar Neelkanth
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mithilesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Shikhar Neelkanth, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ajay Nigam for O.P. No.2.
3. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not further propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.
4. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Court of Learned Sessions Judge, Agra in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2025 (Shobhit Tomar vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Complaint Case No. 3158 of 2016 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Ujjawal Dodiya vs. Shobhit Tomar), P.S- New Agra, District- Agra), pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Agra.
5. The case of the applicant is that post-conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 24.03.2025 by Special Judge, 138 N.I. Act, Agra in Complaint Case no.3158 of 2018, the applicant was sentenced for R.I. for one year and deposit of the fine compensation being Rs.11,00,000/- + Rs.3,52,000/- total Rs.14,52,000/-. Assailing the said order, the applicant preferred a Criminal Appeal no.118 of 2025 along with stay application for staying of the conviction, sentence and recovery and the said application came to be decided on 08.05.2025 while directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the amount determined by the trial court.
6. Questioning the said order, the applicant preferred the present application.
7. This Court while entertaining the application on 09.07.2025 proceeded to pass the following orders:
?1. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that post-lodging of the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the applicant was convicted by order dated 24.03.2025 by Presiding Officer, Special Court 138 N.I. Act in Complaint Case No. 3158 of 2016 against which applicant preferred an appeal along with an application for stay of the conviction and recovery. The Court of Sessions Judge, in Appeal No.118 of 2025 on 08.05.2025 accorded bail and also stayed the sentence and recovery while directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the amount as determined by the Trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 148 of N.I. Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant falls within the exceptional category and he seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Corporation Ltd., (2023) 0 SC 8855 and Muskan Enterprises and Another vs. State of Punjab and another, Criminal Appeal No.5491 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant as per the instructions received from his client submits that the applicant shall deposit 10% of the total amount by 25.07.2025. Since there is no consideration of the judgment in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises (supra), matter requires consideration.
2. Notice on behalf of opposite party no.1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.
3. Issue notice to Opposite Party no.2.
4. Opposite Party No.2 may file its response within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
5. List this case as fresh on 04.08.2025 at 02:00 P.M.
6. Till 04.08.2025, the appellate order dated 08.05.2025 in so far as it pertains to imposition of 20% of the compensation as determined by the Sessions Judge shall remain stayed subject to be provided the applicant 10% of the said amount by 25.07.2025. Before the next date fixed, certificate of proof shall be furnished.
7. The protection accorded to the applicant is only available subject to compliance of terms and conditions and timeline as provided herein and in case of default, the order shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench.?
8. A counter as well as rejoinder affidavit has been filed, which are available on record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by Sessions Judge, Agra cannot be sustained in so far as it directs deposit of 20% of compensation while exercising power under Section 148 of the Act for the simple reason that the case of the applicant has not been considered in the correct perspective as per the mandate of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Corporation Ltd., (2023) 0 SC 8855 and Muskan Enterprises and Another vs. State of Punjab and another, Criminal Appeal No.5491 of 2024, whether it falls under exceptional category or not. He thus submits that the said order be said aside.
10. Sri Nigam, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. submit that categorical finding has been recorded that the stand which has been taken in the stay application for staying of the conviction, sentence and recovery of the amount that he had deposited Rs.7,80,000/-, but the court below found that there is no evidence of deposit of the same, thus the case of the applicant has been considered and found that it is not in exceptional category. At this stage, Sri Nigam submits that since the applicant has already deposited 10% of the amount, thus a direction be issued to the court below to decide the appeal within a time bound period while observing that the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournment.
11. To such submission, learned counsel for the applicant has no objection.
12. Thus, this Court without going further into the legality of the order as per the statements made by the parties, is deciding the application in the following terms:
(a) The order dated 08.05.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2025, Shobit Tomar vs. State of U.P., passed by Sessions Judge, Agra directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the total amount as determined by the trial court is modified to 10%.
(b) Since the applicant has deposited 10%, thus he is not required to deposit any further amount, however, the said amount shall be subject to decision in the appeal.
(c) Sri Shikhar Neelkanth as well as Sri Nigam, learned counsel for the parties as per the instructions received from their clients have made a statement at Bar that their client shall not take adjournment, thus it is provided that the court below shall decide the appeal with most expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment and in case, adjournment is granted, the same shall not be for seven days at a stretch.
13. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025
N.S.Rathour
(Vikas Budhwar, J)
