[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sh Raman Gambhir vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 9 April, 2026
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 09thApril, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 142/2023&CRL.M.A. 592/2023
SH RAMAN GAMBHIR .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Swadha Gupta with Mr. Abhishek
Ranjan, Advocates along with
petitioner.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP.
Mr. Yash Singhal, Advocate for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Applicant herein was held guilty for committing offence under Section
138 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881. There were two more accused i.e.
his father and M/s Kesar Communications (P) Ltd. (the Company) and they,
too, were convicted.
2. Learned Trial Court sentenced the applicant and his father to the
imprisonment till rising of the Court and burdened all three accused with fine
of Rs. 2,50,000/- each.
3. The abovesaid order was challenged by convicts. Separate appeal was
filed by complainant on the point of inadequacy of sentence. Both the appeals
were disposed of by common judgment dated 09.05.2019. Though, the
conviction was upheld, the fine amount was enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-,
besides interest @ 6% per annum.
4. The abovesaid order was not, further, assailed by either of the sides
and, when the fine amount was not paid, the learned Trial Court took up the
matter and has issued coercive process. It is in the abovesaid backdrop that the
petitioner has filed the present petition.
5. When the present matter was taken up on 10.01.2023, the non-bailable
warrants issued pursuant to order dated 22.10.2022 against the applicant
herein, were directed to be stayed.
6. It is also noticed that there was a direction to the petitioner to deposit
the entire sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- i.e. fine imposed upon him, and such amount
has already been deposited and, thereafter, even released to the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for respondent also does not dispute the abovesaid
fact. He submits that the father of applicant has already expired and the
learned Trial Court is already seized with the issue of realization of fine from
other convicts.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that fine amount of Rs.5 lacs has
already been paid by the petitioner and only the interest component of Rs.
2,80,957/- is unpaid. This amount, according to her, is till the date when Rs.
5,00,000/- was deposited with the Registry of the Court.
9. Learned counsel for respondent, without prejudice to his rights,
submits that if the abovesaid amount of Rs. 2,80,957/- is deposited by
petitioner within reasonable time, he would have no objection if the order of
recalling of coercive process is made absolute. He, however, submits that he
has not done any calculation himself with respect to the interest component
but, trusting the calculation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he
would have no objection if reasonable time is granted to them.
10. Petitioner is present in person and during the course of the arguments,
he submitted that the abovesaid amount would be paid/deposited on or before
01.07.2026.
11. Learned counsel for respondent submits that he would have „no
objection‟ if the time is, accordingly, granted to him.
12. The statement of the petitioner is taken on record and it is made clear to
him that his statement is taken on record "as an undertaking to the Court" and
if there is any delay or violation, he would invite action under Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971. After understanding and comprehending the same
appropriately, and after having consulted his counsel, he states that there
would not be any delay or default, and he would deposit the abovesaid amount
with the Registry of this Court on or before 01.07.2026.
13. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of while taking the
abovesaid undertaking on record and the coercive process issued against him
stands recalled.
14. The abovesaid amount, as and when deposited, be released to
respondent No.2-Amit Rastogi forthwith.
15. Needless to say, in case, there is any non-compliance of the abovesaid
order and undertaking, and if the amount is not deposited, the Registry would
place the matter before this Court, for passing appropriate order.
16. Learned Trial Court would, however, be at liberty to pursue the case
further for the purposes of realization of the fine amount from the other two
convicts, in accordance with law.
17. Petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
18. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
APRIL 9, 2026/sw/pb
