IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Rajeev Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Surender Kumar Bansal - Respondent
Crl.M.C. 3270 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. purpose of process under section 82 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. background of the case and settlement (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. reiteration of established legal position (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. conclusion and directions of the court (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 20101/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 3270/2021
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Jugde-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in CR No. 13/2020 arising out of CC No. 1952/2017 filed under Sections 138/141 NI Act, whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide judgment dated 10.01.2020, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and the same was assailed before the Sessions Court by way of an appeal, however, due to the petitioner's non-appearance, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid appeal is still pending before the Sessions Court and the petitioner has made an offer of settlement to the complainant for Rs.5,65,000/-, which has been accepted. He also submits that out of the aforesaid amount, only Rs.1,45,000/- remains to be paid and the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the aforesaid remaining amount of Rs.1,45,000/- to the respondent. It is prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.11.2021 may be set aside. Learned counsel, on instructions, further undertakes that the petitioner will appear before the Sessions Court on the next date of hearing and thereafter.
4. It is noted that the aforesaid Complaint Case came to be filed against the petitioner under Sections 138/141 NI Act on the allegation that in furtherance of a sale/purchase transaction of gold and jewellery, the petitioner had issued cheques in favor of the complainant, however, the same got dishonoured on the ground "funds insufficient" and the petitioner failed to discharge the liability after issuance of legal notice within the statutory period.
5. Vide judgment dated 10.01.2020, the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act and vide order on sentence dated 15.01.2020, he was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years, alongwith payment of double the cheque amount as compensation to the complainant. An amount of Rs.85,000/- was directed to be deducted from the said amount, as it had been paid by him to the complainant during the proceedings. In default of the payment of the compensation, the petitioner was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. On an application moved under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C., the petitioner's sentence was suspended till filing of the appeal.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment on conviction dated 10.01.2020 and the order on sentence, the petitioner assailed the same before the Sessions Court. In course of the proceedings, the matter was settled between the parties for a sum of Rs.5,65,000/-. It has been claimed that out of the settled amount, an amount of Rs.1,45,000/- remains to be paid as on date.
7. The petitioner's case is that he had fallen ill on 26.10.2021, for which reason he could not appear before the concerned Court and NBWs came to be issued against him. The matter was listed for 16.11.2021, on which date, he reportedly reached the Court with a sum of Rs.90,000/- to be handed over to the complainant, however, by the time he appeared before the Court, process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued against him.
8. It is a well-established position of law that the purpose of issuing p
AI
The proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. are solely for the purpose of securing the accused's presence in court.
The court recognized the importance of settlement agreements and allowed the petitioner to seek a recall of the non-bailable warrant while keeping it in abeyance pending the trial court’s decision.
The court emphasized the need for parties to actively engage in proceedings, noting that continuous non-appearance and attempts to evade trial unjustifiably delay justice.
Initiating proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. requires adherence to legal standards; mere absence from court does not justify such measures.
The deliberate misuse of bail and failure to challenge previous orders can justify the issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., while the lack of reason and material can lead to the setting a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application for issue of proclamation under sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. and stopping further proceedings unde....
Orders under Section 82 Cr.P.C. must not be issued mechanically; accused should be given the opportunity to appear before the court to avoid being treated as absconders.
The Trial Court should have allowed the application for issue of proclamation under sec. 82 of Cr.P.C. to proceed further in accordance with law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated in a routine manner and pre-requisites of Section 82 Cr.P.C. need to be complied with....
Accused must show willingness to pay interest and costs to be considered for discharge under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.