Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, J.
Smt. Nanda Amrut Pirdurkar And Another – Petitioners
Versus
Prince Rajak And Another – Respondents
M.Cr.C. No. 47906 of 2022
Decided On : 04-11-2025
(1) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 394(2) -- effect of abatement of appeal -- if appeal stands abated on account of death of accused, then judgment passed by trial Court shall remain in existence with all necessary implications. [Para 10]
(2) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 357, 421 and 431 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- S. 138 -- recovery of compensation -- trial Court convicted deceased u/s. 138 of NI Act, sentenced him with simple imprisonment and awarded compensation -- deceased died during pendency of appeal -- compensation may be recovered as fine u/ss. 421 and 431 of CrPC -- amount of compensation may be recovered from property inherited by legal representatives -- there would be no personal liability of legal heirs, i.e., legal heirs are not liable to be sent to jail etc. or for any coercive action -- only property of deceased/accused would be liable for payment of compensation. (2009) 6 SCC 652 and (2017) 7 SCC 471 followed. (2019) 9 SCC 606 and Cr.A.-S-77-SB-1999 decided on 30.01.2025 (P&H) distinguished. [Paras 13, 15, 30 & 31]
(3) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- S. 357 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 53 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Ss. 138 and 143A -- terms “fine” and “compensation” are not one and the same -- they have different meanings and connotations -- fine is one of the punishments/modes of sentence u/s. 53 of IPC -- compensation is not mentioned as one of the modes of sentence or punishment -- u/s. 138 of NI Act also, compensation is not mentioned as one of the modes of sentence or punishment -- fine is part of sentence/punishment -- compensation is not part of punishment/sentence -- purpose/object of compensation is to recompensate victim/to make good the damage/injury suffered by victim -- compensation is never awarded as punishment/sentence. [Paras 19 to 21 & 26]
(4) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 421 and 70 -- recovery of compensation -- warrant for levy of fine has to be issued, not arrest warrant u/s. 70. [Para 35]
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 394¼2½ & vihy ds mi'keu dk çHkko & vfHk;qä dh e`R;q ds dkj.k vihy mi'kfer gks tkrh gS rks fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; leLr vko';d fufgrkFkksZ lfgr vfLrRo esa jgsxkA ¼iSjk 10½
¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 357] 421 rFkk 431 & ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 138 & çfrdj dh olwyh & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us e`rd dks ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu nks"kfl) Bgjk;k] lknk dkjkokl ls naMkfn"V fd;k rFkk çfrdj vf/kfu.khZr fd;k & vihy ds yacu ds nkSjku e`rd dh e`R;q gks xbZ & çfrdj naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 421 vkSj 431 ds v/khu tqekZus ds :i esa olwy fd;k tk ldrk gS & çfrdj dh jde fofèkd çfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk fojklr esa çkIr dh xbZ laifÙk ls olwy dh tk ldrh gS & fof/kd okfjlksa dk dksbZ O;fäxr nkf;Ro ugha gksxk] vFkkZr~ fof/kd okfjl tsy Hksts tkus vkfn ds fy, vFkok fdlh çihM+d dkjZokbZ ds fy, nk;h ugha gksaxs & e`rd@vfHk;qä dh laifÙk gh çfrdj ds lank; ds fy, nk;h gksxhA ¼2009½ 6 ,llhlh 652 rFkk ¼2017½ 7 ,llhlh 471 vuqlfjrA ¼2019½ 9 ,llhlh 606 rFkk lhvkjŒ ,Œ,lŒ 7-77- ,lchŒ 1999 fu.khZr fnukad 30-1-2025 ¼iaŒ ,oa gfjŒ½ çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 13] 15] 30 ,oa 31½
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 357 & naM lafgrk] 1860 /kkjk 53 & ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 138 rFkk 143d & in ^^tqekZuk** vkSj ^^çfrdj** ,d ugha gSa & muds fHkUu vFkZ rFkk ladsrkFkZ gSa & tqekZuk naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 53 ds v/khu naMksa@naMkns'k ds çdkjksa esa ls ,d gS & çfrdj naMkns'k ds çdkjksa esa ls ,d vFkok naM ds :i esa mfYyf[kr ugha & ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 138 ds v/khu Hkh] çfrdj naMkns'k ds çdkjksa esa ls ,d vFkok naM ds :i esa mfYyf[kr ugha & tqekZuk naMkns'k@naM dk Hkkx gksrk gS & çfrdj naM@naMkns'k dk Hkkx ugha gksrk & çfrdj dk ç;kstu@mn~ns'; ihfM+r dh {kfriwfrZ djus@ihfM+r }kjk Hkksxk x;k uqdlku@Hkksxh xbZ {kfr dh iwfrZ djus dk gksrk gS & çfrdj dHkh Hkh naM@naMkns'k ds :i esa vf/kfu.khZr ugha fd;k tkrkA ¼iSjk 19 ls 21 ,oa 26½
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 421 rFkk 70 & çfrdj dh olwyh tqekZus ds mn~xzg.k ds fy, okjaV tkjh fd;k tkuk gksrk gS] /kkjk 70 ds v/khu fxjrkjh okjaV ughaA ¼iSjk 35½
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the execution proceedings and compensatory obligations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against personal liability of legal representatives. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. clarification on compensation recovery from inherited property. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 4. reiterating that property of deceased can be liable for compensation. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. conclusion and ruling on the procedural correctness of warrant issuance. (Para 34 , 35) |
ORDER :
ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, J.
1.This M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for setting aside the entire execution proceedings of MJCR No. 1008/2017 pending before JMFC, Jabalpur as well as to set aside arrest warrant issued against petitioners for recovery of Rs. 1,53,000/- dated 11.07.2022.
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present petition are that one Amrut Pirdurkar was convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed in Criminal case No. 5362/2011 (Prince Rajak Vs. Amrut Pirdurkar) and sentenced under Section 138 of N.I. Act with simple imprisonment of 1 year and Amrut Pirdurkar was also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the complainant. Against aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, Amrut Pirdurkar filed criminal Appeal No. 249/2014. During pendency of aforesaid appeal, Amrut Pirdurkar expired and therefore, vide order dated 13.12.2017, 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur dismissed the appeal filed by the Amrut Pirdurkar as having been abated accused. No application was filed on behalf of LR’s of Amrut Pirdurkar to continue the appeal. After dismissal of aforesaid appeal as having been abated, complainant filed proceeding before the trial Court for recovery of compensation which was registered as MJCR No. 1008/2017. In aforesaid MJCR case, warrant was issued against petitioners for recovery of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 5362/2011. primarily against this proceeding, present petition has been filed.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that vide judgment dated 17.07.2014, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar was sentenced with simple imprisonment and Amrut Pirdurkar was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- but no sentence of fine was imposed by the trial Court under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Trial Court can impose imprisonment or fine or both. But it cannot award compensation under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is also urged that after filing of appeal by the deceased Amrut Pirdurkar against conviction, Appellate Court suspended the sentence i.e. imprisonment as well as compensation. As per order of Appellate Court, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar deposited Rs. 30,600/- on 12.09.2014. During pendency of appeal, on 03.02.2010 Amrut Pirdurkar expired and therefore, appeal filed by the Amrut Pirdurkar was dismissed as having been abated on 13.12.2017. On 11.07.2022/18.09.2022, arrest warrant/recovery warrant was issued against legal representative of Amrut Pirdurkar for recovery of compensation.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after referring to Section 394 (2) of Cr.P.C ., submits that if appeal is filed against fine, then, after death of accused, appeal may continue but if appeal is filed against sentence of imprisonment etc., then, as per provision of Section 394 (2) of Cr.P.C ., appeal shall abate. In the instant case, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar was not sentenced with fine, therefore, appeal was dismissed as having been abated. Hence, complainant should have objected to the abatement of appeal. Section 394 (2) of Cr.P.C . does not protect the case in which compensation has been awarded, otherwise, in aforesaid Section term "sentence" should have been used. It is also urged that "compensation" and "fine" are separate and not one and the same. Further, after referring to Section 70 of Cr.P.C . , it is urged that no recovery warrant can be issued. Leg
Legal representatives are not personally liable for compensation, but inherited property can be pursued for recovery post-abatement of appeal.
Legal heirs of a convicted individual can be held liable for compensation awarded, even after the original accused's appeal is abated, under Sections 421 and 431 of the Cr.P.C.
Compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC must be reasonable and not exceed the actual loss suffered, aligning with the cheque amount in dishonor cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless there are special circumstances, fine up to twice the chequ....
Legal heirs of a deceased convict are liable for compensation awarded in criminal cases, and appeals do not abate upon the death of the accused regarding compensation.
Dishonour of cheque – Fine and compensation seeks to achieve same purpose.
(1) Reasons – Reasons are obvious inasmuch as if a cheque gets dishonored, the payee will suffer hardship in meeting his financial commitments. (2) Object and Reasons – The prime object of enacting t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
