M/s Naresh Prasad Agarwal & Company, a sole proprietorship Firm, through its sole proprietor v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nirav Kantilal Salvi, son of Sri Kantilal Salvi
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2359 of 2018 ------ M/s Naresh Prasad Agarwal & Company, a sole proprietorship Firm, through its sole proprietor Mr. Naresh Prasad Lodha, aged about 54 years, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Lodha, resident of Hotel Naresh Building, By-pass road, Chas, PO & PS- Chas, District- Bokaro Steel City. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nirav Kantilal Salvi, son of Sri Kantilal Salvi, aged about 45 years, director of M/s Salvi Chemical Industries Limited, resident of 214, Blue Rose Industrial Estate, Western Express Highway, Borivali East, PO & PS – Borivali, District- Mumbai, State- Maharashtra 3. Kaushal Kantilal Salvi, S/o Sri Kantilal Salvi, aged about 40 years director of M/s Salvi Chemical Industries Limited, resident of 214, Blue Rose Industrial Estate, Western Express Highway, Borivali East, PO & PS- Borivali, District- Mumbai, State- Maharashtra 4. Kantilal Salvi, S/o Late Narayan Das director of M/s Salvi Chemical Industries Limited, resident of 214, Blue Rose Industrial Estate, Western Express Highway, Borivali East, PO & PS- Borivali, District- Mumbai, State- Maharashtra. … Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 ------ 1. Nirav Kantilal Salvi, aged about 45 years 2. Kaushal Kantilal, aged about 40 years
Legal Reasoning
1 & 2 Both Sons of Sri Kantilal Salvi. 3. Kantilal Salvi, aged about 75 years, Son of Late Narayan Das 1 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 All Directors of M/s Salvi Chemical Industries Limited, Resident of M/s Salvi Chemicals Industries Limited, 214, Blue Rose Industrial Estate, Western East Mumbai, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.- Western East Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400066 … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. M/s Naresh Prasad Agrawal & Co. through its Proprietor Naresh Prasad Lodha, S/o Late Shiv Shankar Lodha, Resident of Hotel Naresh Building, Bypass Road, Chas, P.O. & P.S.- Chas, Dist.- Bokaro … Opposite Parties For the Petitioners For the State For the O.P. No.2 to 4 For the O.P. No.2 ------ : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate Mr. Aditya Mohan K., Advocate (All in Cr.M.P. No.2359 of 2018) Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate (Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Addl.P.P. (Cr.M.P. No.2359 of 2018) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate (Cr.M.P. No.2359 of 2018) : Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Aditya Mohan K., Advocate (All in Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018) ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Since both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed in the common matter, hence, both the Cr.M.P. No.2359 of 2018 and Cr.M.P. No.3709
Decision
of 2018 are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2359 of 2018 has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of 2 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 Criminal Procedure with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017 whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has allowed the revision petition filed by the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 and set aside the order dated 13.02.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.21 of 2015 , by which the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro rejected the prayer for dispensing with their personal appearance of the opposite party Nos.2 to 4. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 are the accused persons of C.P. Case No.21 of 2015 involving the offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act regarding dishonor of the cheque worth Rs.4,69,661/-. The opposite party Nos.2 to 4 filed a petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.21 of 2015. The same was rejected. Against the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017. 5. Learned revisional court keeping in view the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was of the opinion that Section 143 of the N.I. Act, 1881 confers power to the Magistrate to discharge the accused if he compensates the complainant to the satisfaction of the court and also held that the trial court has the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under Section 143 in exercise of its inherent power. The learned revisional court considered that 3 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 were ready to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra) and disposed of the revisional application by observing that the accused persons of the said complaint case shall deposit Rs.6,00,000/- by way of demand draft in the name of the complainant- opposite party within eight weeks from the date of this revisional order, before the learned trial court and that the petitioner herein who was the complainant in the trial court, will be at liberty to receive the said demand draft of Rs.6,00,000/- as full and final amount including the compensation and cost towards the disputed amount to the extent of Rs.4,69,661/- and the case may be disposed of by the court below on the basis of the compromise. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner of Cr.M.P. No 2359 of 2018 relying upon the judgment of the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 submits that in the said judgment, it was as held that, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra) in so far as it conferred power on the trial court to discharge an accused is not good law. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the said judgment of Constitutional Bench in the said Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020, portion of the judgment so far as it relates to the part of the order that the complaint case be disposed of on the basis of compromise be deleted; as there was neither any compromise nor any assessment of the compensation to be paid to the complainant, made by the 4 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 court and the court unilaterally accepted the amount offered by the accused persons of the case. 7. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the said petitioner that the revisional court has further ordered that, if the accused persons of this case deposits the said Rs.6,00,000/- but the complainant fails to accept the said demand draft, then, the court may grant the petitioners exemption from their personal appearance subject to filing a fresh petition or in the light of the petition dated 06.06.2017 and shall proceed further and dispose of the case in the light of the judgment of M/s Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra). 8. The accused persons of the case did not deposit Rs.6,00,000/- within the eight weeks’ time from the order of this revisional court dated 06.03.2018 but they have prepared the demand draft of Rs.6,00,000/- on 04.07.2018 and deposited the same in the court thereafter. The accused persons of the case filed Criminal Misc. Case No.47 of 2018 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro for allowing them to deposit the demand draft of Rs.6,00,000/- but as the accused persons of the case failed to assign any cogent reason for non- compliance of the order dated 06.03.2018 within the stipulated time period of eight weeks, the Sessions Judge, Bokaro vide order dated 19.07.2018 in Criminal Misc. Case No.47 of 2018 rejected the said prayer of the petitioner. 9. The Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3709 of 2018 has been filed by the accused persons of the case who were the petitioners of the said Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.47 of 2018 to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 19.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro 5 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 in the said Criminal Misc. Case No.47 of 2018. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 3709/2018, that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro, being not sustainable in law, the prayer made in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.3709/2018 be allowed. 10. Learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2359 of 2018 defends the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revisions No.83 of 2017 but fairly submit that in view of the constitutional bench judgment in the case of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 (supra), the said judgment so far as it relates to discharge of the accused persons is not sustainable in law but the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro for grant of exemption of the personal appearance on filing fresh petition or in the light of the petition dated 06.07.2017 granted by the trial court, be retained. 11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, so far as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2359 of 2018 relating to Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017 is concerned, in view of the judgment passed by the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 wherein the judgment in the case of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra) so far as it conferred the power on the trial court to discharge the accused is not good law. So, certainly the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017 by which the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in paragraph-22 has made the observations in terms of the judgment of the 6 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Kanchan Mehta (supra); which as already indicated above is no more good law, is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the paragraph-22 of the said order dated 06.03.2018 passed in the said Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro is quashed and set aside. 12. In the result Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2359 of 2018 is allowed. 13. So far as the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3709 of 2018 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioners of the said Cr.M.P. is that the subsequent order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in rejecting the prayer to deposit the demand draft of Rs.6,00,000/- obviously in terms of paragraph-22 of the said order dated 06.03.2018 passed in the said Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017 but as already this Court has set aside the said observations made by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in paragraph-22 of Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017; in view of the judgment of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.2 of 2020 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer to allow more time to deposit ₹ 6 lakhs obviously in terms of paragraph-22 of the said order dated 06.03.2018 passed in the said Criminal Revision No.83 of 2017 to the petitioners of Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018; who were the accused persons of the case concerned, has become infructuous. 14. Hence, this Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 is disposed of being infructuous in view of the order passed by this Court in setting aside the paragraph-22 of the Cr. Revision No.83 of 2017. 15. Both these Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are disposed of accordingly. 7 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018 16. In view of disposal of these Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, interim relief granted, if any, stands vacated. 17. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 16th of August, 2024 AFR/ Saroj 8 Cr. M.P. No.2359 of 2018 With Cr.M.P. No.3709 of 2018