Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deepak Agrawal vs Alok Agrawal on 7 April, 2025
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16908
1 CRR-1509-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 7th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1509 of 2025
DEEPAK AGRAWAL
Versus
ALOK AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Neeraj Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the applicant.
ORDER
This criminal revision has been preferred to challenge the
impugned order dated 27/03/2025, whereby the appellate Court instead
of deciding the amount to be deposited under the order of suspension,
listed the case for final hearing.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this criminal revision are that, a
compliant case was filed for the offence of Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short 'N.I. Act') against the applicant which was
decided and the applicant was convicted and sentenced. A criminal
appeal CRA No.2/2025 was preferred by applicant which is pending
before the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge Maihar, District
Maihar (M.P.). Vide order dated 13/01/2025, the appellate Court
directed that applicant shall pay Rs.10,20,000/- against the compensation
of amount of Rs.51,00,000/- awarded by the trial Court for seeking the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16908
2 CRR-1509-2025
relief of suspension of sentence. The grievance of applicant was that he
had already paid Rs.16,50,000/- when the trial was going on before the
trial Court, but the appellate Court ignored this fact. He, therefore,
preferred a criminal revision bearing Cr.R. No.380/2025 which was
disposed of by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
03/03/2025 directing the appellate Court to verify the amount deposited
by applicant during the trial proceedings and decide the application
afresh in accordance with law.
3. The grievance of applicant is that, without ensuring the compliance of
order dated 03/03/2025 passed in Cr.R. No.380/2025, the appellate Court
passed the impugned order dated 27/03/2025 and directed the parties to
argue the matter finally. A request has, therefore, been made to set aside
the impugned order dated 27/03/2025.
4. Learned counsel for applicant heard in detail and the record has been
perused.
5. From the perusal of orders and applications placed on record, it is
clear that applicant stands convicted for the offence of Section 138 of
N.I. Act and he was directed to pay a compensation amount of
Rs.51,00,000/- under that order of conviction passed in SC NIA
No.56/2019 vide judgment dated 16/12/2024. It is also evident that
applicant preferred a criminal appeal before the 4th Additional Sessions
Judge Maihar bearing CRA No.2/2025 in which he was directed to pay
Rs.10,20,000/- as a condition for securing suspension of sentence and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16908
3 CRR-1509-2025
bail. That order of appellate Court was passed on 13/01/2025 and was
challenged by applicant in Cr.R. No.380/2025 before the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court. Vide order dated 03/03/2025 that Bench directed
the appellate Court to reconsider the issue but the appellate Court did not
examine this issue and instead it, directed the matter to be listed for final
hearing.
6. An order passed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory in nature
and it is evident that from the impugned order, that the appellate Court is
now not insisting upon the applicant to deposit any additional amount for
seeking suspension of sentence. The order-sheet dated 27/03/2025
reflects that applicant is appearing in person before the appellate Court
which suggests that he has already been granted bail and the order of
sentence has already been suspended.
7. The applicant would have been aggrieved, if without ensuring the
compliance of direction given in Cr.R. No.380/2025, the appellate Court
kept on asking the applicant to deposit the amount of Rs.10,20,000/-, but
now no cause of action regarding this issue survives to the applicant as
the appellate Court has dropped that condition.
8. It appears from the submissions made by counsel for applicant that,
applicant is aggrieved by the fact that the appeal has been listed for final
hearing, but that cannot be a cause of grievance. Any criminal appeal is
ultimately to be heard finally and only a legal procedure has been
adopted by the appellate Court while passing the impugned order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:16908
4 CRR-1509-2025
27/03/2025. There is no strength in the arguments that by passing the
impugned order, the appellate Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction or
that by this order, the right/defence of applicant has been prejudiced.
9. In terms of above discussion, this criminal revision devoid of any
substance is hereby dismissed.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its
record for information.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
sjk
