Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maya Sengar vs Vishvesh Nageena on 25 February, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4141
1 M.Cr.C. No. 8704 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 25th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8704 of 2025
MAYA SENGAR AND OTHERS
Versus
VISHVESH NAGEENA
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Kishore Mishra - Advocate for applicants.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of B.N.S.S.,
2023, has been filed against order dated 28.01.2025 passed by II Additional
Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.), in Criminal Revision No.10/2024.
2. Facts necessary, for disposal of present application, in short, are that Gyan
Singh was prosecuted for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. He was convicted and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay
compensation of Rs.2,00,500/- and in default of payment of compensation to
undergo RI for further period of one year. Being aggrieved by the judgment
passed by the trial court, original accused preferred an appeal but he died during
the pendency of appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed as abated.
3. Applicants are the legal representatives of original accused. It appears that
complainant has filed execution proceedings for recovery of compensation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4141
amount of Rs.2,00,500/-. The said application was opposed by applicants alleging
that since the original accused has died, therefore, the amount of compensation
ordered to be paid by him cannot be recovered from the legal heirs of
accused/deceased. The said application was rejected. It was challenged by
applicants by filing Criminal Revision No.10/2024. However, II Additional
Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) by impugned order dated
28.01.2025 dismissed the revision.
4. Challenging the orders passed by the courts below, it is submitted by
counsel for applicants that once original accused has died, therefore,
compensation amount directed against him cannot be recovered.
5. Heard learned counsel for applicants.
6. Applicants have not pleaded that after the death of main accused, they have
not succeeded property left by the accused. Section 70 of IPC reads as under:-
"70. Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment -- Death
not to discharge property from liability.--
The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any
time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the
sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than
six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and
the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability any
property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts."
Thus, it is clear that death of the offender does not discharge from the
liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts.
Thus, it is clear that the compensation amount awarded against the
deceased/accused can be recovered from the property left by him. Since it is not
the case of applicants that the deceased had not left any property, therefore, it is
clear that the compensation amount can be recovered from the estate of the
deceased which was left by him and was inherited by applicants. Accordingly,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:4141
courts below did not commit any mistake by rejecting the objection made by
applicants.
7. As a consequence thereof, order dated 28.01.2025 passed by II Additional
Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.10/2024
is hereby affirmed. Application fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
