9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1151 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - availing the remedy of filing the revision petition - Dishonour of Cheque - exercise of discretion rationally, by the Trial Court interim compensation - HELD THAT - Petitioner cannot be permitted to seek a second revision in the garb of the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, 1987 (11) TMI 404 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court observed that the bar under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be overcome merely by stating that petition was filed invoking inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In Surender Kumar Jain v. State Anr., 2012 (1) TMI 352 - DELHI HIGH COURT this Court observed that the High Court does enjoy inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but that power has to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, particularly, when the person approaching the High Court has already availed remedy of first revision in the Sessions Court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be sparingly exercised and should not be used as a substitute for a second revision albeit there can be no doubt that when there is a serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court or where mandatory provisions of law are not complied with and when the High Court feels that the inherent jurisdiction has not been exercised correctly by the Revisional Court, it can interfere as held by the Supreme Court in Kailash Verma 2005 (1) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, the question is whether Petitioner has made out an extraordinary case warranting interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Whether the Trial Court has exercised its discretion rationally, keeping into account the facts of the case and the conduct of the Petitioner and if the exercise of discretion warrants any interference by this Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? - HELD THAT - Impugned order dated 18.08.2023 shows that the learned Magistrate has passed a reasoned order supporting the award of compensation in favour of the Respondent. Trial Court observed that Petitioner has admitted her signatures on the cheque in question as well as the factum of issuance of the cheque from her account, leading to the mandatory presumptions under Sections 118A and 139 of the NI Act against her to the effect that the cheque was drawn by her for a consideration and the Respondent Company had received the same in discharge of a debt/liability, from the Petitioner. Trial Court rightly observed that the only factor which could then have come to the rescue of the Petitioner while deciding the application was that Petitioner was not responsible for dragging or delaying the proceedings. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for second revision. High Court can entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where there is serious miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court or an error of jurisdiction or violation of mandatory provisions of law, however, this provision cannot be invoked calling upon the High Court to substitute its findings for that of the Trial Court or the Revisional Court, particularly, on findings of fact rendered therein or to interfere where discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court on sound reasoning - It is equally settled if the impugned orders record a finding of fact as concurrent findings, based on detailed appreciation of material before it, the High Court should be extremely slow in interfering. The object of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction of law which has to be a well-founded error in the given case. This Court sees no reason to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in light of the findings of the Trial Court and a concurrent finding by the Revisional Court and the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to interim compensation orders. 2. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Application of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. Exercise of discretion by the Trial Court. Summary of Judgment: 1. Challenge to interim compensation orders: The Petitioner challenged the orders dated 18.08.2023 and 11.12.2023 by the Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, respectively, which awarded interim compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (20% of the cheque amount) to the Respondent. The Petitioner argued that the orders were erroneous as they overlooked her plausible defense and the discretionary power under Section 143A of the NI Act was misapplied. 2. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it was a second revision disguised under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is prohibited by Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The Court referred to various judgments, including Rajan Kumar Manchanda v. State of Karnataka, and concluded that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and not as a substitute for a second revision. 3. Application of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act: The Court discussed the legislative history and purpose of Section 143A, which allows for interim compensation to the complainant in cheque dishonour cases to address undue delays and provide relief. The provision is directory, not mandatory, and the Trial Court must record reasons for awarding interim compensation. The Court cited judgments like V. Mahadevan Iyer v. P. Anbazhagan to emphasize the need for a reasoned order. 4. Exercise of discretion by the Trial Court: The Trial Court awarded interim compensation based on the Petitioner's admitted signatures on the cheque and her conduct of seeking repeated adjournments, which delayed the trial. The Revisional Court upheld this decision, noting no patent defect or error of jurisdiction. The High Court concurred with these findings, stating that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion rationally and the Revisional Court had correctly upheld the order. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no reason to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the Trial Court and Revisional Court had both provided sound reasoning for their decisions. The petition was deemed devoid of merits, and the pending application was also disposed of.
|
