Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1174 (RAJ)

Arjun Arora v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-25

CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

body2023
ORDER : Chandra Kumar Songara, J. Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Court of Rent Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (Additional Sessions Judge (Summer Vacation) (herein-after referred to as 'the Revisional Court'), in Criminal Revision Petition No.22/2018, whereby while partly allowing the revision petition, directed the petitioner to pay the exorbitant interest @ 18% per annum from the date of cheque till the date of payment and imposed the costs of Rs.50,000/-, and the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Caes) No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan (herein-after referred to as 'the trial Court'), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to drop the proceedings, was partly set aside. 2. Relevant facts, in brief, of the present case are that on 09.11.2016 the complainant-respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint (Annexure-1) against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 alleging therein that a share purchase agreement dated 10.11.2015 was executed between the parties. The petitioner issued two cheques i.e. No.000026 dt.16.06.2016 amounting to Rs.65,00,000/- and No.000029 dt.30.06.2016 amounting to Rs.59,02,144/- of the Bank of Baroda, Bandra (West) Bandra, which on presentation were returned due to insufficient funds on 26.08.2016. A legal notice dated 23.09.2016 was sent to the petitioner and despite receipt thereof on 28.09.2016 the amount was not paid within the period of fifteen-days expiring on 12.10.2016. Upon criminal proceedings being initiated by the complainant, the amount of aforesaid cheques in total Rs.1,24,02,144/- was deposited in the bank account of the complainant on dated 03.11.2016, after the expiry of prescribed period. 3. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 12.01.2017 (Annexure-2) took cognizance against the petitioner. After service, the petitioner appeared before learned trial Court and moved an application (Annexure-3) to drop the proceedings on the ground that the amount of Rs.1,24,02,144/- in relation to cheques-in-question has already been transferred in the bank account of the complainant on 02.11.2016. 4. 3. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 12.01.2017 (Annexure-2) took cognizance against the petitioner. After service, the petitioner appeared before learned trial Court and moved an application (Annexure-3) to drop the proceedings on the ground that the amount of Rs.1,24,02,144/- in relation to cheques-in-question has already been transferred in the bank account of the complainant on 02.11.2016. 4. The complainant filed reply to the application (Annexure-4) stating therein that as per Condition No.7 of share purchase agreement dated 10.11.2015, the petitioner is required to pay interest @ 27% per annum for the delayed payment and as per Condition No.8, the petitioner has agreed to get the personal guarantee of the complainant released from the bank within eight months of agreement or else to pay interest @ 9% per annum for six months of delay & after that 18% per annum. 5. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties vide its order dated 06.12.2017 (Annexure-5), dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that if the proceedings against him are dropped, it will amount to review of an order. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against the order dated 06.12.2017. The learned Revisional Court, after hearing the parties vide its order dated 28.06.2018, partly allowed the revision petition & observed that the amount of cheque was paid to the complainant on 02.11.2016 i.e. prior to date of complaint 09.11.2016 and refused to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 (Annexure-6) passed by learned Revisional Court imposing the exorbitant interest & costs to drop the proceedings is illegal, erroneous, unreasonable & contrary to law and without considering the fact that the amount has already been paid before initiation of criminal proceedings. The exorbitant rate of interest @ 18% per annum was imposed with costs of Rs.50,000/- without any finding or reason, whereas in the criminal complaints, reasonable compensation has to be decided by the Court on the basis of overall facts & circumstances. Counsel has further submitted that learned Revisional Court has also observed that for compliance of condition of share purchase agreement and if any amount remains outstanding as per agreement, the complainant is free to invoke the remedy before the competent Civil Court. Counsel has further submitted that learned Revisional Court has also observed that for compliance of condition of share purchase agreement and if any amount remains outstanding as per agreement, the complainant is free to invoke the remedy before the competent Civil Court. Counsel has also submitted that learned Revisional Court has erroneously calculated the interest from the date of cheque, whereas the liability to pay only arises if the amount of cheque is not paid within fifteen-days from the receipt of notice. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the costs & interest imposed vide its order dated 28.06.2018 by learned Revisional Court be set aside. It is further prayed that learned trial Court be directed to close the proceedings against the petitioner or discharge the petitioner in criminal proceedings pending before it, modifying the rate of interest for the period of interest and reducing the cost imposed by learned Revisional Court. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, one in the case of R. Vijayan v. Baby and another, AIR 2012 SC 528 and another in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and another, (2007) 6 SCC 555 . 8. Per-contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent No.2 have opposed the submissions made herein-above and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record as well as the judgments cited herein-above. 10. While passing the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 the learned Revisional Court, had observed "after perusing the record of subordinate Court, it is found that a complaint under section 138 of N.I. Act on behalf of complainant - Diwan Infra Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. Co. has been submitted against the defendant - Arjun Arora, stating therein that the complainant-company had received cheques bearing No.000026 dt. 16.06.2016 of Rs.65 lakh and another cheque bearing No.000029 dt.30.06.2016 of Rs.59,02,144/- of Bank of Baroda (Bandra West) Bandra. The aforesaid cheques were returned to the complainant by the bank on 26.08.2016 due to insufficiency of funds upon being presented for receiving the aforementioned amount at Vaishali Nagar Branch of Bank of Baroda, Jaipur. Thereafter, the said cheques were dishonoured. 16.06.2016 of Rs.65 lakh and another cheque bearing No.000029 dt.30.06.2016 of Rs.59,02,144/- of Bank of Baroda (Bandra West) Bandra. The aforesaid cheques were returned to the complainant by the bank on 26.08.2016 due to insufficiency of funds upon being presented for receiving the aforementioned amount at Vaishali Nagar Branch of Bank of Baroda, Jaipur. Thereafter, the said cheques were dishonoured. A registered notice dated 23.09.2016 was served upon the defendant- Arjun Arora and received by him on 28.09.2016 and the total amount of both the cheques was to be paid to the complainant-company within fifteen-days from the receipt of notice. The aforesaid amount was received in the bank account of the complainant on 03.11.2016. Accordingly, the payment made by the defendant, after passing of due date in the bank account of the complainant for the above-mentioned two cheques, does not put to an end the criminal liability of defendant -Arjun Arora. In reply of application submitted on behalf of the accused for dropping the criminal proceedings, the complainant has stated that a share purchase agreement was executed on 10.11.2015 between the parties. According to Condition Nos.7 & 8 of the agreement, in case of delay in payment, the purchaser shall be liable to pay interest @ 27% per annum on such delayed payment and a collateral security amounting to Rs.4 Crore was to be released from the bank in favour of the complainant, which also got delayed and it was decided that interest @ 18% per annum shall be chargeable till release of collateral security and payment for the disputed cheques was to be made only after paying the amount due as per both of the conditions. The legal precedent established in the case of M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, AIR 2017 SC 4594 , clearly notes that the Court is entitled to close the proceedings under section 143 of the N.I. Act readwith Section 258 of Cr.P.C., wherein following three conditions are fulfilled : (i) Cheque amount is paid, (ii) Interest on the cheque amount is paid, (iii) Costs as assessed by the Court is paid. In the present matter, it is found that the revisionist/ accused- Arjun Arora has only made payment of Rs.65 lakh for cheque No.000026 and Rs.59,02,144/- for cheque No.000029 in the bank account of the complainant-company - Diwan Infra buildcom Pvt. Ltd. on 02.11.2016. In the present matter, it is found that the revisionist/ accused- Arjun Arora has only made payment of Rs.65 lakh for cheque No.000026 and Rs.59,02,144/- for cheque No.000029 in the bank account of the complainant-company - Diwan Infra buildcom Pvt. Ltd. on 02.11.2016. In view of legal precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the revisionist/accused has fulfilled only one condition. The payment of Rs.65 lakh for first cheque dated 16.06.2016 was made on 02.11.2016, in these circumstances, interest @ 18% per annum for a period of four and a half month i.e. Rs.4,38,750/- remains to be paid by the accused Arjun Arora. Second cheque bearing No.000029 dt.30.06.2016 was of Rs.59,02,144/- and the payment was made on 02.11.2016, in these circumstances, interest @ 18% per annum for a period of four months i.e. Rs.3,54,128/- remains to be paid by the accused- Arjun Arora. Accordingly, interest of Rs.7,29,878/- on the total amount of both the cheques i.e. 1,24,02,144/- found to be payable to the complainant-company and the liability to pay the aforesaid amount is on the accused- Arjun Arora. As per the third condition, only the principal amount i.e. Rs.1,24,02,144/- of both the cheques has been paid and the accused has not made any other payment to the complainant-company towards the interest payable from the date of presentation of complaint till the date of conclusion of trial. In this situation, the award of costs of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant from the accused - Arjun Arora appears to be just and proper." 11. It is further observed by learned Revisional Court that ".......for the questions that whether conditions of share purchase agreement dt. 10.11.2015 are complied with or any amount remains to be paid under the agreement, the complainant-company - Diwan Infra Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. is free to invoke appropriate remedy before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction." 12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court is conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 13. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court is conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 13. In the present case, learned Revisional Court has passed a detailed order dated 28.06.2018 based on referred judgment of the petitioner in the case of M/s. Meters & Instruments Private Limited and another v. Kanchan Mehta, AIR 2017 SC 4594 , decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is well reasoned alongwith findings on costs & interest imposed thereof. The case law cited by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner fails to advance the case of the present petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the learned Revisional Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.