Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anushk Naredi vs Jagdish S/O Kashmiri Lal Arora ... on 9 November, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9 th OF NOVEMBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49403 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ANUSHK NAREDI S/O ANIL NAREDI, AGED ABOUT 30
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O THIRD FLOOR
NAREDI COMPLEX NEEMUCH CANT DISTT. NEEMUCH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI ABHINAV MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE)
AND
JAGDISH S/O KASHMIRI LAL ARORA THROUGH
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRIKANT SAMEER
YADAV, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
BUSINESS R/O KRISHNA PLAZA BEHID NAHATA
COMPLEX BEHIND KHURSHID THEATRE NEEMUCH
CANNT NEEMUCH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the order
dated 5.10.2023 passed by ASJ, Neemuch in case No. 96/2023 whereby the
application of the petitioner for waiving of 20% deposit of the fine or
compensation under section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'the
Act'), 1881 has been rejected.
2. The applicant is convicted by the Magistrate by order dated 6.9.2023
passed in criminal case No. 279/2019 and sentenced to one month and the court
has awarded Rs.20 Lacs for cheque amount and Rs.2 Lacs for compensation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 09-11-2023
17:08:53
and additional amount of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Being
aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the I ASJ
and moved an application for suspension of sentence and also for waiving 20%
amount under section 148 of the Act, which has been rejected by the impugned
order.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that prima facie applicant has very
good case in his favour and he has filed documents regarding his low income,
therefore the trial court ought to have allowed the application for waiving of
20% deposit.
4. He submits that provisions of section 148 of the Act have been
considered by the Apex Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. in Cr.Appeal No. 2741/2023 reported
in 2023 SCC Online SC 1144. The relevant paragraph Nos.6,7 and 8 are quoted
below :
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation
should be made of section 148 of this N.I. Act. Hence, normally, appellate
court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in
section 148. However, in a case where the appellate ocurt is satisfied that
the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a
condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant,
exception can be made for the reasons specifically recorded.
7. Therefore, when appellate court considers the prayer under
section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for
offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is alway open for the
appellate court to consider whether it is an exceptional case which
warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition
of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated earlier, if
the appellate court comes to the conclusion that is is an exceptional case,
the reasons for coming to the said conclusion must be recorded.
8. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the original
complainant is that neither before the Sessions court nor before the High
Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be
made in these cases and the requirement of deposit of minimum 20% of
the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not
made by the appellants, there was no reasons for the courts to consider
the said plea."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 09-11-2023
17:08:53
5. From the aforesaid paras, it is axiomatic that Apex Court held that
appellate court has power to waive the condition of deposit of minimum 20% of
the fine or compensation amount but the said discretion has to be exercised
only in exceptional cases.
6. In the present case, upon perusal of the application filed by the
applicant for waiving of deposit of 20% of the compensation and fine amount,
it is evident that nothing has been stated in the said application that the
applicant's financial condition is poor and he is not in a position to deposit the
said amount. The trial court has recorded a finding that the applicant has failed
to show any reason for non depositing the said amount and for waiver of the
deposit of the said amount. Apart from that, there is no evidence to show that
applicant has filed the documents relating to his poor income. Even along with
the present petition, no such document is filed. As per judgment in the case of
Jamboo Bhandari(supra), good case on merit is not one of the condition from
waiving of the condition of deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount under
section 148 of the Act. In view of aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under section 482 of
Cr.P.C.. M.Cr.C. is accordingly dismissed.
7. At this stage, counsel for the applicant prays for one month time to
deposit 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the appellate court.
Considering the said prayer, one month time from today is granted to deposit
20% amount as per order of appellate court.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 09-11-2023
17:08:53
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MUKTA
CHANDRASHEKHAR KOUSHAL
Signing time: 09-11-2023
17:08:53
