Chattisgarh High Court
Rajesh Soni vs Smt. Kanta Chandvani on 21 February, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Cr.M.P No.2066 of 2022
Rajesh Soni S/o Janki Lal Soni Aged About 52 Years R/o Manav
Mandir Chowk Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Kanta Chandvani W/o Late Ashok Chandvan Aged About 62
Years R/o Street No. 10 Sindhi Colony, Lalbag Rajnandgaon, Tahsil
And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Vandna Asrani D/o Late Ashok Chandani Aged About 47
Years W/o Suraj Kumar Asrani, R/o House No. 150 Near Durga
Mandir , Dr. Ambedkar Ward No. 10 Mandala, Madhya Pradesh
3. Smt. Ritu Tehlani D/o Late Ashok Chandwani Aged About 42 Years
W/o Rajkumar Tehlani, R/o Nandanvan Colony Bhusaval, Jalgaon,
Maharashtra
4. Smt. Hunar Tharvani D/o Late Ashok Chandwani Aged About 40
Years W/o Niraj Tharwani, R/o House No. 406/01 Jagmohan Das
Ward, New Basti Murvara, Katni, Madhyapradesh ----Respondents
For Petitioner: Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order on Board
21.02.2023
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal Revision
No.12/2022 arising out of the order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the
JMFC, Rajnandgaon whereby, a direction for recovery of
compensation to the tune of Rs.29 lacs in Criminal Case
No.255/2017 was given by invoking the provision under Section 421
Cr.P.C by disallowing the objection of the Petitioner as he has
suffered jail sentence in lieu of the compensation, this Petition has
been filed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Ashok
Chandvani (now deceased) had filed a complaint against the
Petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before
the JMFC, Rajnandgaon which was registered as Criminal Case
No.255/2017. After completion of trial, the Petitioner was convicted in
the said case and was awarded simple imprisonment for 1 month and
also sentenced for compensation to the tune of Rs.29 lacs payable to
the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C with usual default
stipulation vide judgment of conviction and order sentence dated
11.02.2021. The Petitioner has completed the substantive jail
sentence of one month and thereafter, remained in jail against the
default of payment of compensation and after 6 months of the
judgment of conviction and completion of substantive jail sentence,
the legal heirs of the Complainant (Respondents herein) have
preferred an application before the Court below on 02.08.2021 for
recovery of the compensation amount in which, the Petitioner has
raised an objection as the original Complainant has died, therefore,
no recovery can be made by his legal heirs. However, the Petitioner
has also suffered the default sentence in lieu of the compensation but
the JMFC has disallowed the said objection and proceeded to
recover the said amount from the Petitioner invoking the power
vested under Section 421(1) Cr.P.C. Against the said order dated
10.03.2022, the Petitioner has preferred a Revision, which was also
dismissed. Hence this Petition.
3. Shri Mayank Kumar submits that the impugned orders are bad
in law as under Section 357(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C, the compensation
shall be recoverable by such person only and it has no application to
cases in which, the legal heirs of a person whose death occurred.
Here, as the Petitioner has already suffered default jail sentence in
lieu of the compensation, therefore, recovery of the said
compensation amount is not just and proper and prays to quash the
impugned orders. In support, he placed reliance in the matters of
Palaniappa Gounder vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others and Smt.
Meel Bai vs. Rameshvar Prasad Chauhan reported in (1977) 2 SCC
634 and 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 1622 respectively.
4.. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the
documents annexed herewith carefully.
5. Under Section 357 Cr.P.C, the compensation deemed to be
treated as fine for the purpose of recovery and the provision under
Section 421 Cr.P.C stipulates that even in default of payment of the
fine, the offender shall be imprisoned and if such offender has
undergone the whole or such imprisonment in default, no Court shall
issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in
writing or in an order for the payment of expenses or compensation
out of the fine under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In the present case, as the
compensation has been ordered and even the Petitioner has suffered
the default sentence, therefore, the said amount can be recovered
invoking provision of Section 421 Cr.P.C. However, the contention
put forth by learned Counsel for the Petitioner as the said amount can
be recovered only by the Complainant and after his death, his legal
heirs have no right to recover the said amount has no rationality and
the word 'as a person' has to be construed liberally to the victim and if
the victim has died, it is enforceable by his legal heirs and the case
laws cited above are distinguishable to that of the facts of the present
case.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order i.e. order dated 21.10.2022
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Criminal
Revision No.12/2022 arising out of the order dated 10.03.2022
passed by the JMFC, Rajnandgaon are well merited and does not call
forany interference invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. In view of above, the Petition being bereft of any merits is
accordingly dismissed at motion stage.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Priya
