Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Gangaram Dani v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-21

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2025
ORDER : 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant Ganga Ram Dani against the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2017 whereby, the appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent no.2 and while modifying the order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act cases), Pali, enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,10,000/-to Rs.2,00,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the appellant, whereupon a case bearing Criminal Case No. 1237/2015 came to be registered against him before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Pali. After due course of trial, the learned trial court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide judgment dated 29.09.2016 but instead of imprisonment, the learned court granted benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of Probation of Offenders Act and directed the appellant to submit bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to keep peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and further ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the complainant as per Section 5 of the Act. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant respondent filed an appeal before the court of Sessions Judge, Pali, who partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 29.09.2016 to the extent that the appellant shall pay enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. double the amount of cheque, to the complainant instead of Rs.1,10,000/-. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellate court has committed grave error of law in enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court. It is argued that the appellant had deposited a cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be given to complainant way back in the year 2012 but the respondent refused to accept the same. After passing of the order dated 29.09.2016 by the trial court, the appellant had deposited cheque in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- before the trial court but the same is still lying before the trial court. 1,00,000/- to be given to complainant way back in the year 2012 but the respondent refused to accept the same. After passing of the order dated 29.09.2016 by the trial court, the appellant had deposited cheque in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- before the trial court but the same is still lying before the trial court. It is argued that the appellant had made efforts to reconcile and settle the dispute in the spirit of Lok Adalat but the complainant respondent was bent upon harassing the appellant and now the appellate court has doubled the amount of compensation which is onerous. It is submitted that the appellant was ready and willing to settle the dispute in the year 2012 itself and as per settled proposition of law, if an application for compounding is made by the accused, the compounding can be done by paying 10-15% of the cheque amount, therefore, the appellate court was not justified in awarding compensation of double the amount of cheque, in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 may be quashed and set aside and the order dated 29.09.2016 may be restored as he is ready to pay the compensation amount awarded by the trial court. Learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta, (2017) 10 SCR 66, Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663 , judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 2 Cri LR 685. 5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submits that despite the fact that the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act, he was granted benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of offenders Act but awarded meagre compensation in comparison to the cheque amount, therefore, the appellate court has rightly doubled the cheque amount by way of compensation, which does not call for any interference, as the cheque was issued way back in the year 2009 and the judgment was passed by the trial court in the year 2016. Even after passing of the judgment by the appellate court in the year 2021, not a single penny has been paid by the appellant. Even after passing of the judgment by the appellate court in the year 2021, not a single penny has been paid by the appellant. If the interest amount is calculated from the year 2009 till 2016, the same will accrue to a much larger amount. Therefore, the appellate court has not committed any error in passing the judgment dated 20.09.2021, as such, the appeal may be dismissed. Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suganthi Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan, 2002 0 Supreme (Raj.) 97. 6. It is not disputed that the cheque in question was given by the appellant to the respondent in the year 2009 and the trial court had passed the judgment in the year 2016. However, it is relevant to note that the petitioner had deposited a cheque for the due amount in the year 2012 alongwith a compounding application. However, the complainant did not accept the offer of accused. Thereafter, the trial court passed the order dated 29.09.2016 imposing 10% fine and in pursuance thereof, the appellant had deposited cheque in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- before the trial court. This Court is conscious of the fact that mere offer of the accused to reimburse the cheque amount cannot be said to be an obligation upon the complainant to accept the same but at the same time, the intent of the petitioner to settle the dispute by offering the cheque cannot be lost sight of. In the present case, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act vide order dated 29.09.2016 and while granting benefit of probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of offenders Act, imposed 10% fine upon the cheque amount to be paid to the complainant. The appellate court doubled the amount of fine with the observation that since eight years passed after filing of the complaint and five more years passed in decision of appeal, therefore, the complainant is entitled to double amount of fine. In the opinion of this Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of judgments has held that it is not permissible to impose the maximum compensation solely based on the fact that the accused is a defaulter and that a significant amount of time has passed while the case is still pending. In the opinion of this Court, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in catena of judgments has held that it is not permissible to impose the maximum compensation solely based on the fact that the accused is a defaulter and that a significant amount of time has passed while the case is still pending. While delay in cases is a matter of concern so also the fact that accused has defaulted, but it does not justify the imposition of maximum compensation amount. The law seeks to ensure that compensation is proportionate to the amount of the dishonoured cheque and that it serves as a reasonable remedy for the complainant, not as a punitive measure for delay or default alone. 7. In view of above, the compensation awarded by the appellate court in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- against the dishonoured cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/-, when the complainant had offered to settle the dispute by offering cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- just after three years, is definitely on the higher side. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. While partially modifying the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Appeal No. 33/2017, it is directed that appellant shall pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant, after adjusting any amount, already deposited/paid by the appellant before the trial court within a period of one month from today. Upon deposition, the trial court is directed to disburse the same to respondent forthwith. 8. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 9. Record of the Courts below be sent back forthwith.