Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroop Singh vs The Moga Ventral Co- Op Bank Ltd on 20 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
254 CRM-M-1806-2019
Date of Decision: 20.09.2022
Saroop Singh ......... Petitioner
Versus
The Moga Central Co-Oerative Bank Ltd. ......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None for the respondent.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL)
Challenging the dismissal of the application by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Moga, whereby he refused to extend the time to deposit the balance agreed amount
as per compromise, the accused had come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On 16.01.2019, the petitioner's counsel made a statement to this Court that
the outstanding amount was Rs. 6,50,000/- and out of which the petitioner was ready to
deposit a sum of Rs. 2 lac within one week. Given such statement, this Court had stayed the
pronouncement of final judgment by the trial Court.
On 30.01.2019, the petitioner's counsel made a statement that in
compliance of the previous order, the petitioner/accused had deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lac
in addition of Rs. 6 lac already paid to the complainant.
On 26.03.2019, the petitioner's counsel again made a statement that the
petitioner was ready to deposit the balance amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and sought time. After
that on 22.05.2019, petitioner's counsel made a statement that the petitioner had
deposited the entire cheque amount and the said fact was affirmed by the counsel for the
respondent/bank. However, the petitioner stated that he could not deposit 15% of the
cheque amount as cost of proceedings.
On 11.07.2019, the petitioner's counsel pleaded before this Court with
respect to the petitioner's inability to pay 15% of the cheque amount.
Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was taken up today after a gap of
about three years.
1 of 2
Petitioner's counsel stated that to pay the cheque amount, the petitioner
had to sell his house and now he is in a very miserable financial condition. It was further
contended that in case 15% of the cheque amount is not reduced, then the petitioner shall
have to cull out money meant for medicines and day to day household necessities which
would make their lives very miserable.
There is nothing to disbelieve the petitioner's prayer which is corroborated
from the previous orders. Thus, this Court takes a compassionate view and reduces 15% of
the cheque amount as per judgment in Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC
663, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
[17]. "...Even though the imposition of costs by the competent
court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been
suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can
of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and
circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such
variance."
Given the entirety of facts and circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to
reduce 15% amount to a sum of Rs.50,000/- which the petitioner shall have to deposit
before the concerned Legal Aid Services Authority of the said District on or before
15.12.2022.
Given above, the impugned order rejecting the extension of time is overturned.
Now list the matter before the trial Court on 16.12.2022 on which date, the
petitioner shall hand over a receipt of deposit of Rs.50,000/-. It is clarified that in case
compounding fee of Rs. 50,000/- is not deposited by 15.12.2022, then this order shall stand
recalled automatically under Section 362 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. with any further
reference of this Court.
The trial Court shall not pronounce the final order till 15.12.2022 and from that date
onwards, the stay shall stand vacated automatically.
Given above, the present petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
20.09.2022
Jyoti-II
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
