Chainroop Singh Rajpurohit vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6515 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2369/2022

Chainroop Singh Rajpurohit S/o Pukhraj Rajpurohit, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Adsar, Teh. Sridungargarh, Dist. Bikaner, Presently R/o F-341, Main Badkal Kc Road, Near Gurugram Gramin Bank, Smg Nagar, Nit Faridabad, Haryana.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ashok Kumar Jaat S/o Sh. Kalu Ram Jaat, W.no. 9, Chatasar, Teh. Loonkaransar, Dist. Bikaner, Raj.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Milap Chopra
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP


                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
                            Order

05/05/2022

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Code") the petitioner has challenged order dated 01.04.2022,

whereby, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Loonkaransar,

Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") had directed

the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/- as 20% of the amount

of cheque as provided under Section 143-A of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1888.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of

the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of G.K.

Construction Company Vs. Balaji Makan Samagri Stores (SB

Criminal Misc(Pet.) No.189/2022), the provisions of Section

143-A should be read as directory. He added that considering such

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2369/2022]

position of law, this Court has granted interim order in some of the

cases and the impugned order be stayed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

order impugned.

4. True it is, that as per the adjudication made by this Court,

the provisions under Section 143-A are required to be treated as

directory and not mandatory.

5. But, a perusal of the impugned order dated 01.04.2022

reveals that the trial Court has not treated the provisions of

Section 143-A to be mandatory. As a matter of fact the Court

below has treated the same to be directory.

6. Having so construed, the trial Court has proceeded to direct

the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.42,000/-, in view of the fact that

the petitioner is a resident of Haryana.

7. In the opinion of this Court, construing correctly, the trial

Court has exercised its discretion and has directed the petitioner

to deposit a sum of Rs.42,000/-. No interference is warranted in

exercise of powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code,

particularly when the petitioner having issued cheque has failed to

ensure that it is honoured. The exercise of discretion is also valid

because the petitioner is residing in Haryana and recovery

proceedings if required would be cumbersome and costly.

8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any error

in the impugned order. The petition thus, fails.

9. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 226-pooja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)