Smt. Poonam Sharma vs Ram Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 10345 MP

                                  1
 IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
                       ON THE 7 th OF JULY, 2023
              MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 48611 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
SMT. POONAM SHARMA W/O LT. SHRI AMAR SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVICE,
R/O 73/2 GANDHI COLONY (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND
RAM SINGH S/O SHRI LAL SAHAB YADAV, AGED ABOUT
67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O VILL.
SEEGHAN, PARAGNA KOLARAS, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR TYAGI - ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 12/10/2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Cr.R. No. 32/2019; whereby, order passed by JMFC, Shivpuri dated 7/3/2019 in Criminal Case No. 1253/2010; has been affirmed.

By the order dated 7/3/2019, the application of petitioner dated 3/7/2018; whereby, she has prayed for quashment of recovery of Rs. 3,80,000/-, has been rejected.

Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent has filed a complaint

against the husband of petitioner under Section 138 of NI Act, which stood allowed vide judgment dated 1/3/2014 and husband of petitioner was sentenced to suffer one year RI and also directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- and in lieu thereof, further directed to undergo three months RI.

Against the said order, husband of petitioner filed an appeal vide NO. 54/2014 in which he deposited Rs. 76,000/-. During pendency of the appeal, husband of petitioner Amar Sharma died. Therefore, wife of deceased Amar Singh i.e. present petitioner moved an application for discharging her from payment of compensation, which has been turned down by Court below.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that criminal

liability cannot be fastened on the heirs and the legal representation of the person who is said to have been guilty of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act. In support of his submission he relied upon decision of Apex Court in the matter of M.Abbas Haji Vs. T.N.Channakeshava (Criminal Appeal Nos. 664/2012) decided on 19/9/2019) as well as decision of Madras High Court in the matter of Sivakami Sundari and M.Pachirajan Vs. Michael Fernando (Criminal O.P.(M.D.) No. 4478 of 2008 decided on 2/9/2009).

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Heard.

Petitioner's husband Amar Sharma had been convicted by a magistrate court at Shivpuri for failing to honour a cheque issued by him to respondent prior to year 2014.. The magistrate had sentenced the petitioner's husband to undergo one year RI and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,80,000/-

Amar Sharma, husband of petitioner, however, expired during pendency of appeal filed by him challenging the magisterial order. The submission of

learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is merely a legal heir of the deceased convict and no property has been left been her husband, and therefore she could not have been ordered to pay the fine and the amount of compensation. Under Sections 421 and 431 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the amount can be recovered by auctioning properties of the accused. Further under Section 70 of the Indian Penal Code even death of the convict does not discharge him from such payments and such amounts can be recovered from his property. Here it is not in dispute that Amar Singh left no property, but at the same time it is on record that wife of petitioner got Compassionate Appointment in his place and also received Rs. 304,975/- as retiral dues of her husband, therefore, in the opinion of this Court naturally petitioner come within the purview and therefore can be fastened with all the liabilities of her deceased husband, and therefore there was nothing wrong in the order of the Courts below directing the widow to the pay the amounts of fine and compensation.

Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI PRAKASH Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec865c7633f4cfb9e38ce1

SOLANKI 4fcbb05b9522a, pseudonym=560BC50AD082B9BE54EE290EC8CB2193780D8357, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072A2D8C01433EBD48A E4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2023.07.11 10:09:36 +05'30'