The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.261 of 2025 Pravanjan Mullick Petitioner Mr. A. Patnaik, Advocate …. -Versus- Cini Mohanty Opposite Party Mr. Durga Prasad Sangramjit Mallick, Advocate …. Order No. 01. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK ORDER 17.06.2025 1.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2025 by learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, whereby, he has been directed to pay compensation of 20% of the compensation amount in terms of Section 148 of the NI Act on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is not legally tenable. 3. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned court below while entertaining the appeal blindly directed compensation under Section 148 of the NI Act @ 20% of the compensation amount i.e. Rs.7,80,000/-. Since it is a dispute between the petitioner and opposite party Page 1 of 6 related as spouses and in view of the order dated 23rd August, 2017 as at Annexure-4 of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CP No.123 of 2017, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is further submitted that learned court below should have exercised discretion in a judicious manner before directing compensation of 20% of the compensation amount exercising powers under Section 148 of the NI Act and having not done so, the impugned order dated 10th February, 2025 at Annexure-1 is liable to be interfered with. In support of such contention, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel cited a decision of the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari Vrs. Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and others (2023)10 SCC 446. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the alleged cheque was issued by the petitioner to the opposite party in the year 2016 and the same was prior to the order of the Family court dated 23rd August, 2017. In reply and response to the above, Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Family court’s order i.e. Annexure-4, the petitioner is having no liability to discharge and notwithstanding any such issuance of a cheque in favour of the opposite party, at least, while considering the compensation directed under Section 148 of the NI Act, judicious discretion should have been exercised in view of the case law cited above. Page 2 of 6 5. Perused the impugned order at Annexure-1, whereby, learned court below admitted the appeal, suspended the execution of sentence and also stayed realization of the compensation awarded subject to deposit of 20% of the said amount to be kept in a Nationalized Bank in the shape of fixed deposit for a period two years renewable from time to time. In fact, the learned J.M.F.C., (LR & LTV), Bhubaneswar convicted the petitioner by a judgement dated 6th January, 2025 as at Annexure-2, as against which, the appeal is filed and admitted by learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar. But at the time of the appeal being admitted, such a direction under Section 148 of the NI Act has been issued for the petitioner to make payment of 20% of the compensation awarded. 6. The contention of Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the decision of the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). Mr. Mallick, learned counsel for the opposite party justifies the impugned order as it is merely 20% of the compensation amount which is not on the higher side and hence, rightly, learned Sessions court directed payment of the same by the petitioner to the opposite party, thus, not to be disturbed. 7. In Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the Apex Court had the occasion to consider the provision of Section 148 of the NI Act with reference to an earlier decision in Surindra Singh Deswal Page 3 of 6 and others Vrs. Virender Gandhi, (2019) 3 SCC (Cri.) 461 and held and observed as to the following. “6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive interpretation should be made of Section 148 NI Act. Hence, normally, the appellate court will be justified in imposing the condition of deposit as provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the appellate court is satisfied that the condition of deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant, exception case be made for the reasons specifically recorded.” 8. On a reading of the decision referred to above, the Court finds that an appellate court may be justified in imposing the condition of deposit in terms of Section 148 of the NI Act, however, in a particular case, if such a condition is found to be grossly inappropriate, exception may be carved out assigning reasons therefor and duly recorded. 9. In the instant case, it is pleaded that such a ground having no liability as held and concluded by the learned Family court as per Annexure-4 was brought to the notice of the learned court below but the same has not been taken cognizance of. It is contended by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was admitted and in a routine manner, 20% of the compensation amount as is permissible under Section 148 of the NI Act was directed. The dispute is, as earlier stated, is between the parties related as husband and Page 4 of 6 wife. The alleged cheque was purportedly issued by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party wife and the stood dishonored, consequent upon which, complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed and it has led to the passing of the impugned judgment dated 6th January, 2025 i.e. Annexure-2 challenged in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2025. Upon a reading of the order of the Family court at Annexure-4, the Court further finds that it has reached at a conclusion that the petitioner does not owe liability in terms of movable or immovable property or valuable security to be discharged. 10. Considering the above facts and since, it is claimed that such a ground was raised before the learned J.M.F.C.(LR & LTV), Bhubaneswar in ICC No.1026 of 2017 and also in the appeal memorandum, a copy of which is at Annexure-5 and as the dispute related to issuance of cheque by the husband in favour of wife, the Court is of the view that learned court below ought to have considered compensation in favour of the latter keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari (supra). It is held therein that in normal course such a condition under Section 148 of the NI Act is to be imposed but it can be less than 20% of the compensation amount in a particular case with an exception. On a bare reading of the impugned order dated 10th February, 2025 i.e. Annexure-1, the Court finds that no such discussion has been made nor any consideration, whether, the amount under Section 148 of the NI Act should be 20% of the compensation as has been directed by the court of 1st instance. In the considered view of the Court, a Page 5 of 6 decision is required to be made in the lines of the pleadings on record and in view of the decision in Jamboo Bhandari (supra) in the interest of justice keeping in view the fact that the dispute over the alleged cheque and issuing thereof is in between the parties related as spouses and particularly on the anvil of the order of the learned Family court at Annexure-4. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered. 12.
Decision
In the result, the revision stands allowed. Consequently, the impugned order at Annexure-1passed in Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2025 by learned Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar is hereby set aside with a direction to freshly consider compensation payable to the opposite party under Section 148 of the NI Act in the light of the discussions held hereinbefore and the settled legal position with reference to the decision (supra) of the Apex Court followed by an order at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that as soon as a certified copy of the order is received, learned court below shall do well to pass orders in terms of the directions as aforesaid within the above stipulated period without delay. 13. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Steno Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 19-Jun-2025 10:52:42 Page 6 of 6