Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 833
2025 DHC 1687
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
Anuj Ahuja - Petitioner
Versus
Sumitra Mittal - Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1327 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 5884 of 2025-Stay, CRL.M.C. 1341 of 2025 & CRL.M.A. 5921 of 2025-Stay
Decided On : 17-03-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Dr. Amit George, Ms. Ananya Sikri, Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Mr. Dushyant K. Kaul and Ms. Rupam Jha, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. F. K. Jha and Mr. Gaurav Jha, Advocates
The appellate court's discretion under Section 148 of the NI Act to impose a deposit condition is not absolute and must consider the appellant's financial circumstances.
Headnote:(A) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 148 - Quashing of impugned orders regarding deposit of compensation amount - Petitioner sought waiver of 20% deposit for appeals against conviction under Section 138 - The petitioner contended that the learned ASJ erred in treating the deposit as mandatory and not exercising discretion based on financial circumstances (Paras 1, 9, 10).
(B) Appeal - The appellate court has discretion under Section 148 of the NI Act to order deposit, which is not absolute and must consider the specific circumstances of each case (Paras 15, 18, 24).
(C) Judicial precedents establish that the condition of deposit should not be mechanically imposed and must reflect due application of mind (Paras 20, 34).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in real estate, borrowed Rs.53,00,000/- from respondents, issued post-dated cheques which were dishonoured. He was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act for cheque dishonour (Paras 3, 5).
Findings of Court:
The learned ASJ's orders lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the mandatory deposit of 20%, leading to a remand for fresh consideration (Paras 34, 35).
Issues: Whether the learned ASJ exercised discretion appropriately in imposing the deposit condition, and if the petitioner demonstrated grounds for waiver (Paras 10, 24).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the discretion under Section 148 must not be exercised mechanically but should consider the financial circumstances of the appellant (Paras 18, 34).
Result: The impugned orders were set aside and the applications for waiver of deposit were remanded for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
1. By way of the present petitions under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner, Anuj Ahuja, seeks quashing of two impugned order(s) both dated 27.01.2025 passed in C.A. No.138/2024 and C.A. No.139/2024 entitled “Anuj Ahuja vs. Rajesh Mittal”, [Hereinafter referred as “impugned orders] by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, [Hereinafter referred to as “learned ASJ]. Vide the two impugned order(s), the learned ASJ dismissed the application(s) of the petitioner seeking waiver of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount to suspend both the orders of sentence both dated 08.07.2024 in Ct. Cas. No.2196/2020 and Ct. Cas. No.2197/2020 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, Delhi, [Hereinafter referred to as “learned MM], under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881, [Hereinafter referred as “NI Act]
2. Pithily put, the disputes inter se petitioner and respondent(s) emanate from two financial transactions between them, however, since the factual assertions and the case of the parties, including the legal issues arising therein are the same and Ms. Sumitra Mittal, the respondent in Crl.M.C. 1327/2025 is the mother of Mr. Rajesh Mittal, the respondent in Crl.M.C. 1341/2025, Hereinafter collectively referred as “respondents, both the petitions have been taken up together and being dealt with vide this common judgment.
3. As per the petitioner, he is engaged in real estate business and being acquainted with both respondents in the past, he had taken loans from Mr. Rajesh Mittal from time to time and repaid them within the stipulated time as well. Once both respondents allegedly collectively advanced monetary loan of Rs.53,00,000/- to the petitioner since, he had incurred losses in his business and also wanted to get his sister married. Against payment thereof, the petitioner issued two post-dated cheques as security bearing nos.47870 and 47871 for Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.28,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Azadpur, Delhi in the name of the two respondents herein respectively.
4. As per respondent(s), both the said cheques were dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’ upon their presentation, the respondent Sumitra Mittal filed Ct. Case No.2197/2020 qua cheque bearing nos.47871 for Rs.25,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Azadpur, Delhi as also Mr. Rajesh Mittal filed Ct. Case No.2196/2020 qua cheque bearing no.47870 for Rs.28,00,000/- drawn on IDBI Bank, Azadpur, Delhi, under Section 138 of the NI Act at the same time before the learned MM.
5. In both complaint cases, the learned MM found the petitioner guilty and convicted him under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act vide two separate orders, both dated 01.07.2024 passed in both the cases.
6. Being aggrieved, availing his statutory remedy, the petitioner filed C.A. No.139/2024 and C.A. No.138/2024 under Section 148 of the NI Act before the learned ASJ challenging both the aforesaid orders of conviction(s) and sentence(s) dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned MM respectively. The learned ASJ, while admitting the two appeals on 07.08.2024, granted suspension of the aforesaid sentence(s), albeit, subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount in both cases respectively. When the two appeals were again listed before the learned ASJ on 23.09.2024, since the petitionerhad not complied with the earlier order(s), the petitioner was once again “… … directed to deposit the 20% of the compensation amount, in compliance of previous order dated 07.08.2024 on or before the NDOH. … …”.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two separate applications seeking waiver of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, in both the pending appeals before the learned ASJ. When the said applications were listed on 02.12.2024, relying upon Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., [ (2023) 10 SCC 446
