Sumit Shah v. State of U.P. and ohters), under Section

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by learned Incharge, Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2024 (Sumit Shah Vs. State of U.P. and ohters), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant herein had preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the opposite party no.2 in Complaint No.1024 of 2011 wherein on 8.8.2012 an order came to be passed by the court below holding the opposite party no.2 guilty and convicting him. Challenge the said order of conviction the opposite party no.2 preferred a Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2012 however, during the pendency of the said proceedings on the consent of the opposite party no.2 the matter was transferred before the Lok Adalat at Sonbhadra and thereafter a compromise was entered into between the parties on 8.10.2016 according to which certain terms and conditions were settled, the Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2012 arising out of the order of the conviction dated 8.8.2012 of the Magistrate was decided on 8.10.2016 on the basis of the compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant while inviting attention towards para-9 of the application has sought to submit that as per the paragraph 3 of the compromise application, it was agreed between the parties that a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid by the opposite party to the applicant out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the same day and remaining Rs.3,00,000/- were to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.5000/- each which was to be paid on the first week of the month.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further invites attentions of the Court towards para 11 of the application so as to contend that the opposite party no.2 paid Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day and total Rs.1,60,000/- was paid by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant in equal installments and Rs.1,40,000/- has not been paid. Constraint with the said position, the applicant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by way of application on 3.12.2021 regarding compliance of compromise dated 8.10.2016, the said application was registered as Application No.222 of 2021. It is contended that despite repeated orders, opposite party no.2 did not put in appearance.

6. Since the compromise was not being executed, thus the applicant has preferred an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on 20.10.2022 with a request for complying of the compromise so executed before the Lok Adalat, the said application came to be numbered as 13276 of 2022, however, on 1.11.2022 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra rejected the application as not maintainable for the execution of the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. That challenging the order dated 1.11.2022 the applicant preferred a petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India No.87 of 2023 which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh.

7. The applicant further claims that with respect to recovery of an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which was due and payable, a complaint was preferred on 23.8.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on 16.6.2023 which was numbered as Misc. Case No.888 of 2023, an objection to the same was preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 11.12.2024, the applicant also submitted his reply and vide order dated 24.1.2024 the objection was rejected. Thereafter on 6.3.2024 the learned Magistrate issued recovery warrants against the opposite party no.2 which was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the opposite party no.2 while filing Application under Section 482 No.12523 of 2024 on 27.5.2024 the following order was passed:- "Heard Sri Ravindra Sonker, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ruchi Mishra, State Law Officer for the State. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra by which the learned Magistrate rejected the objection and issued recovery warrants against the applicant vide order dated 06.03.2024 in Misc. Case No. 888/2023 (Sunaina Devi and others Vs. Sumit Shah) u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. From the perusal of record it appears that the on the last occasion counsel for the applicant had submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties before the Lok Adalat which is also part of the order dated 08.10.2016 and the applicant is ready to settle the dispute with opposite party no. 2 and just to check his bona fide, this Court directed him to bring a draft of Rs. 50,000/-. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the counsel for the applicant has produced a draft of Rs. 50,000/- dated 24.05.2024 issued by HDFC Bank, Robertsganj bearing no. 6480 in favour of the opposite party no. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has expressed the desire to settle the dispute with opposite party no. 2. In view of the above, present application stands disposed of with a direction that the applicant will deposit the aforesaid draft before the court below within a period of one week. In case, the draft is deposited before the court below then said draft will release in favour of opposite party no. 2 and in pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2016, the court below will decide the remaining out standing against the applicant on the basis of record and thereafter, permitting him to deposit the remaining outstanding in the reasonable time. Till passing of the order regarding remaining out standing of the applicant after adjusting the draft of Rs. 50,000/- which is to be deposited by the applicant before the court below, no coercive action shall be taken for a period of two months or till passing of the order by the court below whichever is earlier. With the aforesaid direction, the present application stands disposed of."

8. Thereafter both the parties were heard and date was fixed and the trial court proceeded to pass an order dated 19.9.2024 directing the opposite party no.2 to ensure payment of remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- since Rs.50,000/- stood deposited by virtue of order of this Court in the earlier litigation. Questioning the said order, the opposite party no.2 preferred a Criminal Revision No.128 of 2024 which came up for consideration before the Revisional Court on 10.10.2024 wherein notices were issued but however on the same day the order dated 19.9.2024 of the court below was stayed.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there are several ground for attacking the order dated 10.10.2024 regarding the maintainability of the revision and the passing of the interim protection however he submits that at this juncture he confines his relief that the revisional court shall decide the revision within the time bound period.

10. Learned AGA has not objection to the same.

11. Considering the submission so made across the bar, application stand disposed of directing the applicant to submit a self attested copy of the present application as well as certified copy of the order before the Incharge, Sessions Court, Sonbhadra who is seized up the matter being Criminal Revision No.128 of 2024 who shall on the receipt of the matter and in view of the mandate contained in the N.I. Act shall proceed to decide revision with most expedition without granting unnecessary adjournment and in case adjournment is granted the same should not be more than a week at a stretch subject to legal impediment.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 piyush PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pandey learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. This application under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by learned Incharge, Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra in Criminal Revision No.128 of 2024 (Sumit Shah Vs. State of U.P. and ohters), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant herein had preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the opposite party no.2 in Complaint No.1024 of 2011 wherein on 8.8.2012 an order came to be passed by the court below holding the opposite party no.2 guilty and convicting him. Challenge the said order of conviction the opposite party no.2 preferred a Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2012 however, during the pendency of the said proceedings on the consent of the opposite party no.2 the matter was transferred before the Lok Adalat at Sonbhadra and thereafter a compromise was entered into between the parties on 8.10.2016 according to which certain terms and conditions were settled, the Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2012 arising out of the order of the conviction dated 8.8.2012 of the Magistrate was decided on 8.10.2016 on the basis of the compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant while inviting attention towards para-9 of the application has sought to submit that as per the paragraph 3 of the compromise application, it was agreed between the parties that a total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid by the opposite party to the applicant out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on the same day and remaining Rs.3,00,000/- were to be paid in equal monthly installments of Rs.5000/- each which was to be paid on the first week of the month.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further invites attentions of the Court towards para 11 of the application so as to contend that the opposite party no.2 paid Rs.1,00,000/- on the same day and total Rs.1,60,000/- was paid by the opposite party no.2 to the applicant in equal installments and Rs.1,40,000/- has not been paid. Constraint with the said position, the applicant approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by way of application on 3.12.2021 regarding compliance of compromise dated 8.10.2016, the said application was registered as Application No.222 of 2021. It is contended that despite repeated orders, opposite party no.2 did not put in appearance.

6. Since the compromise was not being executed, thus the applicant has preferred an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on 20.10.2022 with a request for complying of the compromise so executed before the Lok Adalat, the said application came to be numbered as 13276 of 2022, however, on 1.11.2022 the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra rejected the application as not maintainable for the execution of the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. That challenging the order dated 1.11.2022 the applicant preferred a petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India No.87 of 2023 which was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh.

7. The applicant further claims that with respect to recovery of an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- which was due and payable, a complaint was preferred on 23.8.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra on 16.6.2023 which was numbered as Misc. Case No.888 of 2023, an objection to the same was preferred by the opposite party no.2 on 11.12.2024, the applicant also submitted his reply and vide order dated 24.1.2024 the objection was rejected. Thereafter on 6.3.2024 the learned Magistrate issued recovery warrants against the opposite party no.2 which was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the opposite party no.2 while filing Application under Section 482 No.12523 of 2024 on 27.5.2024 the following order was passed:- "Heard Sri Ravindra Sonker, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ruchi Mishra, State Law Officer for the State. Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.01.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra by which the learned Magistrate rejected the objection and issued recovery warrants against the applicant vide order dated 06.03.2024 in Misc. Case No. 888/2023 (Sunaina Devi and others Vs. Sumit Shah) u/s 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. From the perusal of record it appears that the on the last occasion counsel for the applicant had submitted before this Court that the compromise entered into between the parties before the Lok Adalat which is also part of the order dated 08.10.2016 and the applicant is ready to settle the dispute with opposite party no. 2 and just to check his bona fide, this Court directed him to bring a draft of Rs. 50,000/-. In pursuance of the order of this Court, the counsel for the applicant has produced a draft of Rs. 50,000/- dated 24.05.2024 issued by HDFC Bank, Robertsganj bearing no. 6480 in favour of the opposite party no. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has expressed the desire to settle the dispute with opposite party no. 2. In view of the above, present application stands disposed of with a direction that the applicant will deposit the aforesaid draft before the court below within a period of one week. In case, the draft is deposited before the court below then said draft will release in favour of opposite party no. 2 and in pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2016, the court below will decide the remaining out standing against the applicant on the basis of record and thereafter, permitting him to deposit the remaining outstanding in the reasonable time. Till passing of the order regarding remaining out standing of the applicant after adjusting the draft of Rs. 50,000/- which is to be deposited by the applicant before the court below, no coercive action shall be taken for a period of two months or till passing of the order by the court below whichever is earlier. With the aforesaid direction, the present application stands disposed of."

8. Thereafter both the parties were heard and date was fixed and the trial court proceeded to pass an order dated 19.9.2024 directing the opposite party no.2 to ensure payment of remaining amount of Rs.90,000/- since Rs.50,000/- stood deposited by virtue of order of this Court in the earlier litigation. Questioning the said order, the opposite party no.2 preferred a Criminal Revision No.128 of 2024 which came up for consideration before the Revisional Court on 10.10.2024 wherein notices were issued but however on the same day the order dated 19.9.2024 of the court below was stayed.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there are several ground for attacking the order dated 10.10.2024 regarding the maintainability of the revision and the passing of the interim protection however he submits that at this juncture he confines his relief that the revisional court shall decide the revision within the time bound period.

10. Learned AGA has not objection to the same.

11. Considering the submission so made across the bar, application stand disposed of directing the applicant to submit a self attested copy of the present application as well as certified copy of the order before the Incharge, Sessions Court, Sonbhadra who is seized up the matter being Criminal Revision No.128 of 2024 who shall on the receipt of the matter and in view of the mandate contained in the N.I. Act shall proceed to decide revision with most expedition without granting unnecessary adjournment and in case adjournment is granted the same should not be more than a week at a stretch subject to legal impediment.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 piyush PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad