Delhi High Court
Sanjay Arora vs Monika Singh on 4 July, 2017
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 04th July, 2017
+ CRL.A. 98/2017
SANJAY ARORA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate
versus
MONIKA SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Paritosh, Advocate with
respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER ON SENTENCE (ORAL)
1. The respondent was held guilty and convicted for offence under
Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by judgment of this
Court passed on 31.05.2017, the gravamen of the charge held proved
against her being non-payment of the amount of the cheque inspite of
notice of demand served upon her by the appellant (complainant) after
the cheque dated 15.11.2009 for Rs.5 Lakh issued by her had been
returned unpaid by the bank for the reasons "funds insufficient".
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
respondent deserves appropriate substantive punishment for the reason
her intention has not been honest in that she has consistently declined
CRl. A.98/2017 Page 1 of 3
to pay over the last 8 years having availed the benefit of a friendly
loan taken from the complainant.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent (convict) submitted
that she is not in a position to make any payment given the fact that
she and her widowed mother are dependent on the pension of her
deceased father. He also submitted that the respondent is presently a
candidate for civil services for which she has appeared in the
preliminary examination which she hopes to clear in near future and
any substantive punishment would render her future bleak.
4. Both sides do not wish to come up with any formal evidence in
respect of their respective contentions.
5. The background facts were vividly noted in the judgment dated
31.05.2017. The respondent had taken financial assistance from the
appellant against the backdrop of ill health of her father then
undergoing indoor treatment in a hospital. The initial loan of Rs.2
Lakhs was not returned. The respondent instead sought further
financial help and the appellant, being sympathetic, extended the same
willingly by paying further amount of Rs.3 Lakhs. It is against this
backdrop that the appellant did not take any precipitate action for the
dishonour of the cheque previously issued and agreed to accept a fresh
cheque of Rs.5 Lakhs. The fact that the said cheque also bounced
upon being presented reflects that the respondent did not have the
means to repay and had played upon the sentiments of the appellant to
avail of the temporary loan which there was no intention to refund.
The appellant has suffered in the bargain having been deprived of his
CRl. A.98/2017 Page 2 of 3
hard earned money only because he had taken pity on the condition of
the respondent.
6. Though given the background facts noted above, it may be too
harsh a view to send the respondent to prison by award of substantive
punishment, it would be a mockery of justice if she is let off without
being burdened with the responsibility to re-compense the appellant
for the financial loss she has caused.
7. In above facts and circumstances, it would meet the ends of
justice if the respondent is directed to pay twice the amount of the
cheque in question as fine which, upon being realized, must be
released to the complainant (appellant) as compensation. Ordered
accordingly.
8. Thus, the respondent is sentenced to fine of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten
Lakhs) with direction that she deposits the same with the trial court
within a period of thirty days from today failing which she will be
liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The amount of fine, upon being realized, shall be released to the
appellant (complainant) as compensation by the trial court.
9. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate for requisite further proceedings on
04.08.2017.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 04, 2017/yg
