Punjab-Haryana High Court
Munish Chaudhary vs Aman Priye Jain on 21 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
136 CRM-M-41487-2022
Date of Decision: 21.11.2022
****
Munish Chaudhary ... Petitioner
VS.
Aman Priye Jain ... Respondent
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
****
Present: Mr. HS Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Priye Jain, respondent in person
Mr. SS Narula, Advocate for the respondent
****
Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)
(1) This order shall dispose of CRM-M Nos. 41487, 41488, 41491,
41492, 41494 of 2002 as common issue is involved for adjudication. For the
sake of order, CRM-M-41487-2022 is treated as the lead case.
(2) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 16.07.2022
passed by the learned ASJ, UT Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.96 of 2022
(Annexure P1), whereby the petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the
compensation amount, as awarded by the learned trial court, in its judgment
dated 13.05.2022, in NACT No.21246 of 06.12.2018 under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act.
(3) Vide order dated 09.09.2022, the case was adjourned to
30.09.2022 whereby interim stay was granted re: impugned order dated
16.07.2022 (Annexure P1).
(4) Thereafter, application was moved for modification of the order
dated 09.09.2022 vide CRM-34340-2022 in CRM-M-41487-2022 along with
applications of same nature in the connected petitions which was allowed
1 of 4
vide order dated 26.09.2022. This court on 26.09.2022 passed the following
order:-
The present petition(s) are taken up for re-hearing on the above-
cited applications.
It would not be out of context to refer to the order dated 09.09.2022
which reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated
16.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, U.T.,
Chandigarh whereby pre-requisite condition with regard to deposit
of 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the trial Court is
contrary to the statutory provisions. The said order shall come into
existence with effect from 12.09.2022.
Adjourned to 30.09.2022.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain
stayed.
In case the petitioner fails to deposit 20% of the compensation
amount being a pre-requisite condition by the next date of hearing, the bail
as well as the main appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed."
These applications have been preferred for modification of the
interim order dated 09.09.2022 with the assertion that the interim
protection granted vide order dated 09.09.2022 may be modified as an
error has crept in while staying the operation of the impugned order dated
16.07.2022 passed by the trial court with a direction that the petitioner(s)
shall deposit 20% of the compensation amount as directed by the learned
trial court vide the said order.
The sole grievance of the petitioner(s) was with regard to the
direction that pre-requisite condition to deposit 20% of the amount of
compensation vide judgment dated 13.05.2022 passed by the trial court and
the impugned order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, UT Chandigarh (Annexure P1).
These applications came up for hearing on 14.09.2022 before this
Court and the counsel withdrew the same, at that stage. However, later in
the day, this Court being sanguine of the fact that actually the order needs
clarification/modification for better interpretation of the spirit of the order,
ordered, posting of these applications for re-hearing on 21.09.2022.
Accordingly, these applications have been listed today.
2 of 4
Since these applications involve similar facts and identical question
of law i.e. pre-requisite condition to deposit 20% of the amount of
compensation is not reasonable or not, the same are being disposed of by
this common order.
The applicant/petitioner(s) have placed reliance on the order dated
07.09.2022 passed by a Coordinate Bench in CRM-M-52048-2019 (Atul
Sood vs. Shishpal Singh & Anr.), wherein without adjudicating the legality
of the order passed by the trial court, relief was granted for not depositing
the amount of 20% of the compensation amount till the decision of the main
appeal. The Coordinate Bench has also directed that the convict shall not
take any adjournment and in case he does so, the trial court shall proceed
further by appointing Legal Aid Counsel on his behalf.
Considering the aforesaid facts and peculiar circumstances, the
order dated 09.09.2022 is modified to the extent that the petitioner(s) shall
not be called upon the deposit 20% of the compensation amount till the
decision of the appeal with a further direction to the petitioner(s) not to
take any adjournment and shall facilitate the trial to proceed further. The
trial court will also be at liberty to appoint Legal Aid Counsel in case of
absence of the counsel for the petitioner(s) for assistance of the Court.
With these directions, clarification and modification, these
applications are allowed."
(5) However, thereafter on 30.09.2022, respondent, Mr. Aman Priye
Jain, was present in person along with Mr. SS Narula, Advocate and an
endeavour was made to settle the matter amicably between the parties and for
that purpose, to work out the modalities, it was adjourned to 17.10.2022.
However, after making efforts between the parties on two occasions, the
modalities for settlement could not be worked out and the respondent is not
willing to enter into any kind of settlement, at this stage and shows his
inclination that the criminal appeal itself, as referred to above, be heard and
decided in a time bound manner.
3 of 4
(6) In view of the order dated 26.09.2022, the protection granted to
the petitioner with regard to the non-deposit of 20% of amount of
compensation is made absolute.
(7) However, since the parties are ad idem that the appellate court
shall hear the matter and adjudicate it in a time bound manner. This Court is
hopeful that appellate court may hear and adjudicate the main appeal
preferably within 2 months from today.
(8) Disposed of in above terms.
21.11.2022 (Sandeep Moudgil)
V.Vishal
Judge
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No
4 of 4
