TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 714
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RL.M.C. 4883/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18617/2024, CRL.REV.P.799/2024, CRL.M.A.18632/2024 & CRL.M.A., 18635/2024, CRL.M.C. 4876/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18588/2024, CRL.M.C. 4878/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18602/2024, CRL.M.C. 4886/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18630/2024, RL.REV.P. 798/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18625/2024, CRL.M.A. 18628/2024 & CRL.M.A. 11121/2025, CRL.M.C. 4879/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18605/2024, CRL.M.C. 4880/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18608/2024, CRL.M.C. 4881/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18611/2024, CRL.M.C.4884/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18620/2024, CRL.M.C. 4885/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18623/2024, CRL.REV.P. 797/2024, CRL.M.A. 18593/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18596/2024, CRL.REV.P. 800/2024, CRL.M.A. 18636/2024 & CRL.M.A. 18639/2024, CRL.REV.P. 801/2024, CRL.M.A. 18640/2024, CRL.M.A. 18643/2024, CRL.REV.P. 802/2024, CRL.M.A. 18644/2024, CRL.M.A. 18647/2024, CRL.REV.P. 803/2024, CRL.M.A. 18648/2024, CRL.M.A. 18651/2024 For the Petitioners Through: Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Mr. Bhaskar Upadhaya, Mr. Kautilya Kumar Singh and Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocates For the Respondents Through: Mr. Avneet Singh Sikka and Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State JUDGMENT DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J Index to the Judgment FACTUAL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Film as one of its financiers and, in return, sought a profit of Rs.3,00,00,000/-, to which M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Limited had agreed. It is further the case of the petitioners that, following the aforesaid investment, the complainant company got M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Limited to execute a written agreement dated 30.05.2010, stipulating repayment of a total amount of Rs.8,00,00,000/-, inclusive of Rs.3,00,00,000/- towards profit, within ten months, i.e. by 30.03.2011, contingent upon the release of the Film. The agreement was executed by M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Limited, while petitioner no. 1, Rajpal Naurang Yadav, and petitioner no. 2, Radha Rajpal Yadav, signed the same as guarantors. The petitioners contend that, although the agreement was essentially an investment agreement, it was inadvertently or deliberately titled as an 'Inter Corporate Loan Agreement' by the complainant. A copy of the principal agreement dated 30.05.2010 is extracted hereunder: 3. Further, owing to unforeseen delays in the release of the Film, it is stated that the parties extended the deadline for repayment from 31.03.2011 to 31.12.2011 and revis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stituted a civil suit, being CS(OS) No. 3037/2012, before this Court. The suit was initially filed as a suit for injunction and was subsequently amended into a suit for recovery of the amount claimed under the Third Supplementary Agreement, which, according to the petitioners, was in breach of the terms of the said agreement dated 09.08.2012. The petitioners further state that, on 03.10.2012, learned counsel appearing for the complainant company had submitted before this Court in the aforesaid suit that the plaintiff would amend the plaint to seek recovery of the amount alleged to be due from the present petitioners and would deposit the requisite court fee within two working days. At that stage, the Film was scheduled to be released on 12.10.2012. Based on the aforesaid submissions, this Court directed the present petitioners, who were defendants in the said suit, not to create any third-party interest in the negative prints of the Film. They were also restrained from assigning the music, audio and video rights, including CD/DVD/Internet rights, satellite rights, channel rights and export/international rights, to any person without prior permission of the Court until further order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter 'Trial Court'] 9. In the said complaints, it was alleged that, in April, 2010, petitioner no. 1 had approached the complainant seeking financial assistance for the completion of the Film 'Ata Pata Lapata' and, at his request, the complainant had agreed to provide such assistance. It was further alleged that, after obtaining a loan of Rs.5 crores for completion of the Film, petitioner nos. 1 and 2, in their individual capacities, along with M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Limited, had stood as guarantors. According to the complainant, under the terms of the agreement, M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Limited and the petitioners had undertaken to pay, without demur and on demand, a sum of Rs.8 crores, comprising Rs.5 crores towards the principal amount and Rs.3 crores towards the agreed return. The complainant further alleged that, in consideration thereof, M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Limited and petitioner nos. 1 and 2, as guarantors, had also executed a promissory note and had issued post-dated cheques towards repayment of the loan amount. It was also pleaded that, since M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 23.02.2013 Funds Insufficient 02.03.13 04.03.13 832/13 01.05.13 021683 dt. 28.02.13 1.5 crore 28.02.2013 Funds Insufficient 14.03.13 16.03.13 824/13 16.04.13 021684 dt. 18.02.13 1.5 crore 23.02.2013 Funds Insufficient 27.02.13 01.03.13 831/13 01.05.13 021681 dt. 25.02.13 1.5 crore 25.02.2013 Funds Insufficient 13.03.13 15.03.13 11. On 21.04.2013, a Consent Agreement came to be executed between the complainant and M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., whereby the parties arrived at a full and final settlement of their disputes. Under the said settlement, M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd. and M/s Naurang Godavari Pvt. Ltd. agreed to jointly and severally pay a total amount of Rs.10.40 crores to the complainant, M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. It was recorded that a sum of Rs.40 lakhs had already been paid through RTGS and the balance amount of Rs.10 crores was to be paid in instalments, namely, Rs.5 crores on or before 31.07.2013, Rs.3 crores on or before 31.12.2013, Rs.1 crore on or before 30.06.2014 and the remaining Rs.1 crore on or before 30.09.2014. For securing and effectua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd., details of the cheque are as follows: i. Cheque No. 013076 dated 31.7.2013 for Rs. 5 crores drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Malad (E), Mumbai. ii. Cheque No. 013077 dated 31.12.2013 for Rs. 3 crores drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Malad (E), Mumbai. iii. Cheque No. 013078 dated 30.6.2014 for Rs. 1 crore drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Malad (E), Mumbai. iv. Cheque No. 013079 dated 30.9.2014 for Rs. 1 crore drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. Malad (E), Mumbai. 4. The Contemnors do hereby solemnly undertake that they shall endeavour to pay the above amounts on or before the above cut off date, failing which Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. shall be at liberty to encash the above 4(four) post dated cheques on the respective dates which the Contemnors undertake before this Hon'ble Court that the same shall be honoured on presentation. 5. On payment of the above amounts, the present suit shall stand withdrawn by Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. and interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 11.10.2012 and 1.11.2012 shall stand vacated. 6. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. has instituted 8 (Eight) complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act against the above contemnors before Addl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Projects Pvt. Ltd. has already issued the post dated cheques as mentioned hereinabove, however in order to further satisfy Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., the above contemnors are issuing undertakings to this Hon'ble Court in the manner already done before. Copies of the undertakings are enclosed herewith. 10. In case there are any amount deposited with this Hon'ble Court as per the interim orders dated 11.10.2012 and 1.11.2012 or any amounts are deposited in future, the same shall stand released to the contemnor on or after the first payment of Rs. 5 crores (Rupees five crores) to Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd. as per:" 12. Subsequent to the execution of the aforesaid settlement agreement, the petitioners preferred FAO (OS) No. 267/2013 before the Division Bench of this Court, assailing the order dated 13.05.2013 passed in IA No. 5427/2013 in CS (OS) No. 3037/2012. By order dated 06.08.2013, the Division Bench disposed of the said appeal while taking on record and validating the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013. The rights of the parties, particularly the right of the complainant to seek appropriate remedies in the event of breach of the settlement terms, were expressly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of settlement, the respondent can seek enforcement and execution of the undertaking in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. The rights of the parties especially of the respondents to seek remedial action for breach of the settlement terms, is expressly reserved." 14. The petitioners further state that, vide order dated 27.01.2016 passed in CS (OS) No. 3037/2012, this Court passed a consent decree for recovery of money in favour of the complainant and against the petitioners in terms of the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013. It is pointed out that paragraph 5 of the said order specifically records that the original agreement and the supplementary agreements referred to in paragraph 7 of the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013 would not revive and that the complainant would stand satisfied upon receiving the amounts stipulated in the said Consent Agreement. According to the petitioners, once the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013 had been entered into and subsequently culminated in a consent decree, the complaints arising out of the dishonour of the earlier cheques ought to have been withdrawn or dismissed, it being their case that the earlier caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplied by the defendant no. 2. 8. It is further made clear that so far as seeking recovery of amounts as per the money decree is concerned, the same will only take place in the execution proceedings seeking execution of the money decree which is passed today as per the consent terms/Agreement dated 21.04.2013. 9. It is also recorded that this Court is not expressing any opinion, one way or the other, with respect to the actions which the plaintiff seeks against the defendant nos. 2 & 3 inasmuch as, an appeal being Cont. App. (C) No. 11/2013 is pending before a Division Bench of this Court against the Order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 03.12.2013 sentencing the defendant no. 2 to the imprisonment of 10 days. Issues with respect to finality of the Order dated 03.12.2013 in respect of imprisonment will be in terms of the final order or interim order which will be passed by Division Bench in Cont. App. (C) No. 11/2013. 10. It is also made clear that attachment of the properties of the defendants in terms of the orders of this Court, will enure for the benefit of the plaintiff in the execution proceedings in view of Order XXXVIII Rule 11 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the bank accounts of the judgment debtors, the same will enure and continue to operate so far as the present execution proceedings are concerned. It is clarified that bank accounts of which reference is made in the present order as also in the attachment orders in CS(OS) No. 3037/2012, will be those bank accounts mentioned in para 13 of the affidavit dated 12.1.2014 of the judgment debtor no. 2 filed in CS(OS) No. 3037/2012. 4. Notice be issued to the judgment debtors, on filing of process fee, both in the ordinary method as well as by registered post AD, returnable on 22nd August, 2016." 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the trial of the seven complaint cases, the complainant had examined two witnesses, namely, CW-1 Rajiv Sharma and CW-2 Madho Gopal Aggarwal, both of whom were duly cross-examined by the petitioners. It is stated that the complainant had exhibited eight documents, marked as Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/8. The learned counsel contends that both the complainant's witnesses had concealed the factum of the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013 entered into between the parties and had not disclosed the same in their examination-in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the decree-holder. 2. The counsel for the judgment-debtors states that the decree-holder may verify whether the decree-holder is interested in taking the said property in satisfaction / part satisfaction of the debt. 3. The judgment-debtor no. 2 present in Court also undertakes to this Court that he will within one month of today either satisfy the entire judgment-debt or pay the first instalment of Rs.2 crores in terms of order dated 21st August, 2018 with interest as may be directed by the Court and if does not comply with this undertaking can be sent to prison. 4. The counsel for the decree-holder states that the judgment-debtors have dodged the decree already for a very long time and the decree be executed by imprisonment of the judgment-debtor no. 2. 5. I am satisfied from the past conduct of the judgment-debtors that the judgment-debtors, inspite of being in a position to pay the decretal amount, are managing their affairs so as to avoid execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor no. 2 is found to have acted in number of films and the explanation each time is, either of the monies therefor having been received earlier or the judgment-d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The last cheque was payable on 31.12.2011, however, once again convicts failed to make such payment. Therefore, another supplementary agreement was executed on 04.04.2012, under which fresh amount was fixed to be paid by convicts to complainant after addition of interest, for total sum of Rs. 10,72,52,745/- and this time convicts issued 11 post dated cheques for aforesaid sum. The last cheque was payable on 30.09.2012. Once again, convicts failed to make payment of aforesaid amount and finally another agreement dated 09.08.2012 was executed between the parties vide which convicts undertook to pay total sum of Rs. 11,10,60,350/- to the complainant towards clearing outstanding debts with interest. This amount was settled after adjustment of Rs.40 lacs paid by convicts to the complainant and after addition of interest for delayed period. Once again, convicts issued eight post dated cheques for total sum of Rs. 11,10,60,350/-, the last cheque being payable on 28.02.2013. All these cheques were issued towards clearing the outstanding debt. However, on presentation of seven out of eight cheques given in pursuance to aforesaid agreement, same were dishonoured on the grounds of insufficie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was in the form of investment, rather than loan and hence, it was subject to profit/loss earned out of movie produced by convicts. Ld. ACMM (East) dealt with this argument also and rejected the same. To appreciate this argument, it is appropriate to refer to clause 4 of first agreement executed between the parties on 30.05.2010. This clause mentioned that the complainant was to extend inter corporate loan in the sum of Rs. 5 crores to the convicts for the purpose of using the same in producing and releasing of a film 'Ata Pata Laapata'. Clause 6 of this agreement mentioned that convicts herein would refund the entire principle amount of Rs. 5 crores lent by complainant on or before 31.03.2011. Clause 7 of that agreement further mentioned about liability of convicts herein to pay a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores towards interest, cost etc. on the aforesaid loan and Rs. 50 lac towards management cost of arranging the funds etc. Thus, as per clause 8 of that agreement, convicts herein had to refund Rs.8 crores to the complainant. Such specific terms of aforesaid agreement could not be substituted with oral assertion of the convicts. Furthermore, the subsequent agreements executed bet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to entertain this plea in the present criminal proceeding. In absence of any such declaration of Civil court, such plea cannot be entertained herein. 13. Convicts have also referred about injunction being taken by complainant from High Court of Delhi and about fate of the movie on the box office. However, these grounds/arguments are insignificant in view of the agreed findings given that convicts were under debt to repay loan with interest to the complainant. Therefore, these factors do not have any bearing on the decision of these cases. 14. Convicts have also raised grounds that before presenting the cheques leading to criminal complaints in hand, complainant should have taken permission either from High Court of Delhi or from the convicts. However, once again I find such arguments to be merit less for simple reason that no law provides that to present cheque against liability or to institute a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act, the complainant has to take permission from the civil court or from the proposed accused persons. The only requirement to present the cheques was that the liability qua those cheques was subsisting. There was no change in that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh cause of action if it, on presentation is dishonoured as in that case original complaint becomes extinct. Aggrieved person has a right to file as many complaints as many cheques were given to him. As every cheque under the Act provides an independent and fresh cause of action to the aggrieved person. Even otherwise, it is difficult to accept that two parallel proceedings, one emanating from the original cheque and others emanating from the terms of the agreement between the parties, can be allowed to run simultaneously. If the earlier complaint is also allowed to continue along with the subsequent complaints, then the very purpose of agreement between the parties and issuance of fresh cheques become meaningless as fresh cheques issued by a party are towards the original liability that gave rise to the initial complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act." 17. The aforesaid observations would make it clear that such observations were made in case of two parallel proceedings going on for offence under Section 138 NI Act, out of one liability. Had it been a case herein that complainant would have also instituted fresh complaint on the basis of dishonor of cheques handed over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 19140350/-was paid to complainant on behalf of convicts. Ld. ACMM in the orders on sentence observed that "further payment made by the convict starting from this date before the hon'ble High Court towards the consent decree shall be adjusted towards the fine which this court has awarded today." As per this order, amount of Rs. 14640350/- would not be adjusted towards the fine, though so much of amount has been paid to the complainant. This is not the meager amount to be ignored, while imposing fine and giving direction for payment of compensation to the complainant. One cannot loose sight of the fact that complainant did avail civil remedy before High Court of Delhi for recovery of amount against same liability. Complainant had the opportunity to seek all kind of compensation in the civil proceedings, but complainant limited his demand to Rs. 10.4 crores in the consent agreement. These factors do have bearing over sentence being passed in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act.Therefore, I find that the approach adopted by ld. ACMM was incomplete, to take into account the payments already made to complainant regarding same liability. However, I shall give my final conclusion reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to Section 357(1) Cr.P.C, rather than under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C, because the trial court had imposed a fine upon convict no. 2as well as convict no. 3 and had directed a part of fine imposed upon convict no. 2 to be paid to complainant as compensation. 22. In view of my foregoing discussions, findings and observations, I do not find any merit in the criminal appeals preferred by the convicts against impugned judgments of conviction. However, a decision has to be taken in respect of orders on sentence, which shall be taken at the end of this judgment, after dealing with plea raised in criminal revisions. GROUNDS TAKEN IN SEVEN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS :- 23. Being aggrieved of the impugned orders on sentence dated 23.04.2018 in aforesaid seven complaint cases, Sh. Sompal Ruhil being Authorized Representative of complainant company i.e. M/s. Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., has preferred seven criminal revision petitions mainly on the following relevant grounds :- ● That impugned orders on sentence dated 23.04.2018 passed by trial court is unjust, unfair, unreasonable and against the facts and law. ● That sentence awarded to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the date of sentence i.e. 23.04.2018, towards the consent decree, should be adjusted towards the fine awarded to him, as both are separate proceedings and complainant company is entitled to avail criminal as well as civil remedies. APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS:- 24. Ld. counsel for petitioner/complainant company argued that trial court did not pass order of sufficient sentence against the convicts and was too lenient for them. He further submitted that the sentence awarded to convict no. 2 was too short, though keeping in view the conduct of convicts maximum sentence should have been passed and even amount of compensation should have been double of the cheques amount. He further submitted that trial court was too lenient for convict no. 3, being guided by her gender, though this factor was not relevant to award sentence of imprisonment against convict no. 3. Ld. counsel referred to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi, (2017) 7 SCC 262, to support his argument that gender of the convict no. 3 could not be treated as an mitigating factor. He further referred to case laws cited as Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, 2002 (1) JCC 315 and L.N. Chaturvedi v. Stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could be filed, however, in cases under Section 138 NI Act State is not the prosecuting agency and State has nothing to do with such cases. In that situation, State is not expected to be aggrieved of order on sentence. 29. On the other hand, Section 397 Cr.P.C provides that High Court or Sessions Judge may examine record of any proceeding before inferior criminal court to satisfy itself or himself as to correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order etc. Thus, this provision specifically refers to sentence passed by an inferior criminal court, which can be looked into by a Sessions Judge under Section 397 Cr.P.C. In the back drop of such statutory provision, the observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case of Nagraj (supra) so as to validate a revision petition being filed before a Sessions Judge for inadequacy of sentence, assume importance. Similar was the finding given by Madras High Court in the case of J.S. Agencies (supra). Therefore, I find that all the revision petitions are well maintainable against impugned orders on sentence, on the grounds of inadequate sentence. 30. Now, I shall deal with the merit of contentions raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence, and that subordinate Criminal Courts do not exceed their jurisdiction, or abuse their powers vested in them by the Code." 33. In Rajaram Vs. State, 1983 CrLJ612 (MP), it was held that "Order of lower court ought not be lightly set aside unless it has entailed mis carriage of justice or where two views are possible merely because the revising court takes the other view." 34. In the present case, ld. ACMM was well aware of civil remedy availed by the complainant. The consent decree passed by High Court of Delhi was also well within knowledge of ld. ACMM. It is worth to mention here that before High Court of Delhi even complainant had agreed to receive a total sum of Rs. 10.4 lac only, though he had the option to demand more amount on the grounds of due compensation. In view of these circumstances, the amount of fine imposed by ld. ACMM cannot be said to be inadequate fine. Rather, while dealing with criminal appeal of the convicts, I have already referred to this aspect to point out the compensation awarded to the complainant. It cannot be said that compensation a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in criminal appeals preferred by all the convicts, impugned judgments dated 13.04.2018 in all seven complaints are upheld. However, orders on sentence dated 23.04.2018 in all seven complaints are hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to the trial court to pass fresh order on sentence in each case, keeping in view the observations made herein above. 39. To be specific, the trial court shall pass order on sentence qua convict no. 1 company as well. The trial court shall also take into account the payments made to complainant regarding same liability till date, while imposing fine against the convicts. Since, this court has rejected the prayer of complainant for enhancement of punishment of convicts no. 2 and 3, therefore, trial court shall ensure that sentence against them is passed without any enhancement. 40. Accordingly, all seven criminal appeals as well as all seven criminal revisions are partially allowed in respect of impugned orders on sentence. Both parties shall appear before trial court on 31.01.2019 at 02:00 PM. Since convict no. 2 is reported to be in civil prison, trial court shall seek his production accordingly." 21. However, at the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 22.05.2019. 24. In the meantime, on 09.02.2022, the petitioners had instituted W.P. (CRL) No. 360/2022 before this Court, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: "a. Issue a Writ of mandamus or like nature by directing the Ld. A.S.J., Kakardooma Court to send the entire record of the Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 138- 144/2009 filed by petitioners as well as Criminal Revision Petitions No. 180-57 CRL.M.C.-4870-2024 186/20 19 filed by the Decree Holder/ Respondent No. 2 and after examining the record set aside the same as a person cannot be sentenced twice for the same offence otherwise it would be violation of Fundamental Rights against Double Jeopardy of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and declare the order of Learned M.M. dated 22.05.2019 and order of Learned A.S.J. dated 21.01.2019 as bad in Law being Violative of fundamental rights. b. Pass any such further orders to do complete justice as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit." 25. Vide order dated 16.02.2022, this Court permitted the petitioners to withdraw the said writ petition with liberty to raise all their contentions before the learned Trial Court, including the contention t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not operational and has already been struck off from ROC. Adequate compensation had already been awarded to the complainant to be paid by Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 3, therefore, Accused No. 1 company is admonished in all the cases." 27. By a separate order of the same date, i.e. 29.05.2024, the learned Sessions Court directed petitioner no. 1 to surrender before the learned Trial Court within thirty days. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were also granted one month's time to deposit the fine amount. The said period expired on 28.06.2024. The operative portion of the order dated 29.05.2024 are extracted hereunder: "Vide separate common judgments announced in the open Court today in fourteen revision petition, all fourteen criminal revisions are partially allowed and sentences have been altered against the convicts in CC Nos. 823/13 (New No. 53711/16), 825/13 (New No. 53694/16), 831/13 (New No. 53822/16), 832/13 (New No.53827), 02/13 (New No. 48785/16), 824/13 (New No.53693/16) & 03/2013 (New No. 50553/16). Convict no. 2 Rajpal Navrang Yadav has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months in each case and to pay a fine of 1.35 Crore in each case and in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 798/24, 799/24, 800/24, 801/24, 802/24 and 803/24, challenging the judgment dated 21.01.2019 of the learned Sessions Court, affirming the judgment of conviction dated 13.04.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but is attributable to incorrect legal advice tendered by the erstwhile counsel representing the petitioners. 31. It is contended that, although the prescribed period of limitation for filing the present revision petitions had expired on 21.04.2019, the learned Trial Court had, in the meantime, reheard the matter on the aspect of sentence pursuant to the judgment dated 21.01.2019 (remanding the matter to Trial Court on aspect of sentencing) and had passed a fresh order on sentence on 22.05.2019. According to the petitioners, they were advised by their then counsel that the challenge to the fresh order on sentence before the learned Sessions Court would also encompass a challenge to the findings of conviction and that the entire matter, including the legality of the conviction, would be examined in those proceedings. Acting upon such legal advice, the petitioners bona f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd, therefore, the proceedings initiated on the basis of the original cheques can no longer be maintained. According to the learned counsel, once such a settlement is arrived at, a fresh cause of action arises only upon the dishonour of the cheques issued pursuant to the settlement and the complainant cannot simultaneously pursue proceedings based on both sets of cheques. 35. It is argued that the seven complaints in the present case arose from the dishonour of cheques issued pursuant to the agreements dated 30.05.2010, 21.09.2011, 04.04.2012 and 09.08.2012. However, thereafter, the parties entered into the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013, whereby the complainant, M/s Murli Projects Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd., along with petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and M/s Shree Naurang Godavari Edutainment Pvt. Ltd., arrived at a full and final settlement. Under the said agreement, the petitioners agreed to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10.40 crores to the complainant, of which Rs.40 lakhs had already been paid through RTGS and the balance amount of Rs.10 crores was to be paid in installments. For securing the said settlement, four post-dated cheques agg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns Court also erred in its interpretation of Clause 6 of the Consent Agreement. It is also contended that paragraph 7 of the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court in CS (OS) No. 3037/2012 merely preserves the remedies available to the complainant in respect of violation of undertakings given to this Court or non-compliance with its orders and directions, including proceedings for contempt, and does not preserve the right to continue with the original complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act. In this regard, reliance is placed upon paragraph 5 of the said order, wherein this Court specifically recorded the statement of learned counsel for the complainant that the original agreement and the supplementary agreements would not revive and that the complainant would be satisfied upon receiving the amounts stipulated in the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013. 39. It is further argued that the complainant cannot be permitted to derive monetary benefits simultaneously through both civil and criminal proceedings arising from the same cause of action. Having obtained a consent decree on the basis of the settlement agreement, without having to prove its claim in the civil suit, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., be set off against the amount recoverable under the consent decree. 43. The learned counsel further submits that petitioner no. 1 has already undergone three months' imprisonment in civil prison in execution proceedings arising out of the same transaction and concerning the same liability. It is argued that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate that the said imprisonment was directly connected with the same transaction and cause of action which forms the basis of the present criminal proceedings. Therefore, petitioner no. 1 ought not to be subjected to another sentence of imprisonment arising out of the same transaction. 44. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is stated that even if this Court were to uphold the conviction, no sentence of imprisonment ought to be awarded to petitioner no. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the alternative, it is prayed that petitioner no. 1 be extended the benefit of Sections 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 45. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2024, sentencing the petitioners in the present cases, be also set aside. B. On Behalf of the Complain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 138 of the NI Act, even though they do not dispute the conviction itself. It is stated that the challenge in these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is essentially confined to the sentence awarded to the petitioners, since their conviction had attained finality upon dismissal of their appeals by the learned Sessions Court on 21.01.2019 and no challenge thereto was made within the prescribed period. It is also submitted that the petitioners had expressly accepted their conviction in the revision petitions filed before the learned Sessions Court. 49. On merits, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 opposes the prayer for setting aside the judgments passed by the learned Courts below. It is submitted that the petitioners have repeatedly failed to honour the undertakings given by them to this Court as well as the various agreements and settlements voluntarily entered into by them over the years. It is pointed out that this Court had also passed a consent decree for Rs.10.40 crores on 27.01.2016, but petitioner no. 1 failed to abide by the undertakings and commitments made thereunder and was consequently directed to undergo detention in civil prison for a period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....counsel for respondent no. 1 further argues that the contention of the petitioners that the criminal complaints arising out of the dishonour of the cheques issued pursuant to the Third Supplementary Agreement dated 09.08.2012 could not have been continued after the execution of the Consent Terms dated 21.04.2013 and the passing of the consent decree dated 27.01.2016, is wholly misconceived. It is submitted that the Consent Terms did not supersede or extinguish the Third Supplementary Agreement and were merely supplemental in nature. It is further argued that the complaint cases arising out of the dishonour of the cheques issued under the Third Supplementary Agreement were never stayed and the only protection granted to the petitioners was that no coercive steps would be taken against them. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 6 of the Consent Terms, which specifically provided that the seven complaint cases would be withdrawn only upon receipt of the entire payment of Rs.10 crores. Since admittedly the petitioners failed to pay the said amount, there was never any occasion for withdrawal of the complaints. The learned counsel further submits that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-payment was specifically dealt with in Clause 6, which reserved the right of respondent no. 1 to continue with the criminal complaints. It is also pointed out that this very issue has been considered by both the learned Trial Court and the learned Sessions Court and concurrent findings have been returned against the petitioners. 56. As regards the plea of double jeopardy, the learned counsel submits that the argument of the petitioners that the decree stood executed by virtue of the order dated 30.11.2018 and that they are, therefore, entitled to be discharged from the present proceedings, is wholly misconceived. It is argued that the order dated 30.11.2018 merely directed detention in civil prison and cannot be construed to mean that the decree stood fully satisfied or executed. The learned counsel further submits that the said argument is contrary to Section 58(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which specifically provides that a judgment-debtor shall not be discharged from his debt merely because he has been detained in civil prison. It is also argued that the contention that petitioner no. 1 should be absolved of criminal liability under Section 138 of the NI Act because o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thus, the present batch of petitions before this Court arises from two distinct judgments passed by the learned Sessions Court. The seven criminal revision petitions filed by the petitioners before this Court challenge the judgment dated 21.01.2019 insofar as it affirms the conviction of the petitioners, whereas the fourteen petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. assail the subsequent judgment dated 29.05.2024 relating to the fresh orders on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the remand. It is in this backdrop that the issues arising in the present proceedings are required to be examined. A. Criminal Revision Petitions challenging the Judgment of Conviction dated 13.04.2018 and 21.01.2019 64. The particulars of the seven criminal revision petitions, along with the corresponding applications seeking condonation of delay, are tabulated below: DETAILS OF REVISION PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS S.No. Criminal Revision Petition Impugned Judgment of Conviction Appeal before Sessions Court CC No. Application for Condonation of Delay 1. 797/2024 21.01.2019 57/18 832/13 18596/24 2. 798/2024 21.01.2019 58/18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The grounds raised in those revision petitions were also entirely directed against the sentence awarded to the petitioners herein. The petitioners had questioned, inter alia, the enhancement of the default sentence from three months to six months, the failure of the learned Trial Court to take into account the period spent by petitioner no. 1 herein in civil prison in the execution proceedings, and the failure to adjust certain amounts allegedly paid by the petitioners. Significantly, no ground whatsoever was raised challenging the findings of guilt recorded by the learned Trial Court or affirmed by the learned Sessions Court. (iii) Most importantly, the prayer clauses of those revision petitions themselves belie the explanation now sought to be advanced before this Court. The petitioners had specifically prayed that the impugned order dated 22.05.2019 be set aside 'to the effect of awarding sentence' and that petitioner no. 1 herein be treated as a "convict" who had already undergone the requisite sentence. The relevant portion of the petition reads as under: 69. The use of the expression 'be treated as a convict' in the prayer clause is relevant, as the prayer proceeds on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e jeopardy. The prayer clause of the said writ petition is set out below: "a. Issue a Writ of mandamus or like nature by directing the Ld. A.S.J., Kakardooma Court to send the entire record of the Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 138- 144/2009 filed by petitioners as well as Criminal Revision Petitions No. 180-186/20 19 filed by the Decree Holder/ Respondent No. 2 and after examining the record set aside the same as a person cannot be sentenced twice for the same offence otherwise it would be violation of Fundamental Rights against Double Jeopardy of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and declare the order of Learned M.M. dated 22.05.2019 and order of Learned A.S.J. dated 21.01.2019 as bad in Law being Violative of fundamental rights. b. Pass any such further orders to do complete justice as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit." 74. The aforesaid writ petition, vide order dated 16.02.2022, was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to raise all contentions before the learned Trial Court, including the contention that imposition of fine or non-payment of the amount under the proceedings under the NI Act would result in double jeopardy. The observations....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision petitions in the year 2019 - does not inspire the confidence of this Court. (iii) Whether 'sufficient cause' has been demonstrated by the petitioner? 79. While observing so, this Court is conscious of the settled principle of law, that the expression 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation by a court of law, and that a litigant should not ordinarily be non-suited on technical grounds alone. However, the law is equally well-settled that mere filing of an application for condonation of delay does not entitle a party to such relief as a matter of course. The explanation offered must be bona fide, reasonable and should satisfactorily explain the entire period of delay in filing a petition. A mere excuse cannot be elevated to the status of a sufficient cause. 80. Also, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners seek to attribute the entire delay to incorrect legal advice tendered by their earlier counsel. In this regard, this Court is constrained to note that petitioner no. 1 herein is an accomplished actor, who is possessed of sufficient means and resources, and has th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the appellants, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay." 83. Likewise, in State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School: 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191, while refusing to condone delay of 123 days in filing the Special Leave Petition and a f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has no right to ask its indulgence. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted..." (emphasis added) 85. In Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380, the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned against the increasing tendency of litigants to attribute the entire blame to their advocates and held that even if an advocate has been negligent, such negligence by itself cannot furnish a ground to condone a long and inordinate delay, as a litigant is equally expected to remain vigilant regarding proceedings initiated at his own instance. The relevant observations are as follows: "10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. In the interregnum, the matter be listed before the Judge In Charge of Delhi High Court Mediation Centre (DHM&CC), for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement between the parties on 08.07.2024 at 02:30 PM after issuing notice to respondent No.l and his counsel. Steps shall be taken to serve notice upon respondent No. 1 for the said date before the DHM&CC at the cost and expense of the petitioners." 89. In the meantime, the petitioners herein had also challenged the order dated 28.06.2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions, which were dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2025. However, it was clarified that the mediator concerned would remain uninfluenced by the observations made in paragraph 8 of order dated 28.06.2024. The order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder: "2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain the present special leave petitions. However, it is suffice to observe that the mediator while mediating the issues shall not be influenced by the observations made in paragraph 8 of the order impugned. 3. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismisse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appearing before this Court, and instead took the stand that his previous counsels had not properly guided him in the proceedings before this Court. In the considered view of this Court, this explanation of being misguided by a counsel cannot be repeatedly invoked every time a litigant wishes to resile from an earlier stand or avoid the consequences of his own conduct. (v) Conclusion 96. Be that as it may, having considered the entire factual matrix, the explanation furnished by the petitioners, the material on record, the conduct of petitioner no. 1 throughout the proceedings, and the settled principles governing condonation of delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to make out any sufficient cause for condoning the extraordinary delay of 1,894 days in filing the present revision petitions, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2019. The explanation that they remained under a misconception for more than five years that their conviction had already been challenged is neither borne out from the record nor inspires confidence of this Court, and equally unpersuasive is the attempt to attribute the entire delay to the allege....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs, by way of the present petitions under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., have essentially laid a two-fold challenge. First, they assail the very maintainability of the complaints instituted by respondent no. 1 under Section 138 of the NI Act and seek their quashing by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, contending that permitting the complaints to continue amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Second, they challenge the common judgment dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court insofar as it relates to the sentence awarded to the petitioners in the said complaint cases. (i) Whether the Complaint Cases under Section 138 of NI Act deserve to be quashed? 103. At the outset, it is noted that these petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed only in the year 2024, seeking quashing of complaint cases which were instituted as far back as in the year 2013. By the time these petitions were instituted, the complaints had already culminated in judgments of conviction dated 13.04.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court, which had further been affirmed by the learned Sessions Court vide judgment dated 21.01.2019. Thus, what is sought to be quashed at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....regating to Rs.10 crores were issued; and the settlement ultimately culminated in the consent decree dated 27.01.2016. According to the petitioners, once the complainant accepted the fresh settlement and the fresh cheques, the earlier cause of action stood extinguished and merged into the new settlement. Therefore, the original complaints under Section 138 of NI Act could no longer survive. If the settlement failed, the complainant's remedies were: to prosecute the dishonour of the four fresh settlement cheques, or pursue civil remedies for breach of settlement, but not to continue the original complaints. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision in Gimpex (P) Ltd. (supra) to argue that a subsequent settlement 'subsumes' the earlier complaint. They also relied upon paragraph 5 of the consent decree dated 27.01.2016, where it was recorded that the original agreement and supplementary agreements would not revive. 108. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/complainant disputed the above interpretation and contended that the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013 did not supersede or novate the Third Supplementary Agreement, as they were only supplemental in nature. Most importa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid instalments were also issued by the petitioners in favour of respondent no. 1. Thus, the settlement contemplated not only the restructuring of the payment schedule but also the issuance of fresh cheques as security for payment of the agreed settlement amount. 111. However, it is an admitted position that the petitioners herein failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Consent Agreement. The agreed installments were not paid in accordance with the settlement and the obligations undertaken by the petitioners remained unfulfilled. In the meantime, the civil suit instituted by respondent no. 1, being CS (OS) No. 3037/2012, also came to be decreed by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.2016 in terms of the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013. Even thereafter, since the decretal amount remained unpaid, respondent no. 1 was constrained to initiate execution proceedings for enforcement of the said money decree. 112. In this background, it becomes material to examine Clause 6 of the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013, which specifically governs the effect of the settlement on the pending complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The same reads as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cy upon which withdrawal of the complaint cases depended, therefore, never arose. Consequently, respondent no. 1 became entitled, in terms of Clause 6 itself, to continue prosecuting the pending complaint cases. In view of this specific stipulation in the Agreement, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that respondent no. 1 was obliged to withdraw the complaint cases or that the complaints had automatically ceased to be maintainable upon execution of the Consent Agreement is wholly misconceived and without merit. 115. The petitioners have also sought to rely upon paragraph 5 of the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by this Court while decreeing CS (OS) No. 3037/2012. The said paragraph reads as under: 5. There would be some ambiguity on account of the language contained in paragraph 7 of the consent terms/Agreement dated 21.04.2013, but the counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the original agreement and the supplementary agreement as mentioned in para 7 of the consent terms/Agreement dated 21.04.2013, do not revive, and the plaintiff will be satisfied on receiving the amounts as stated in the consent terms/Agreement dated 21.04.2013. 116. This Court is u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the same underlying transaction. 118. The facts of the present case, however, stand on an entirely different footing. Though the petitioners had issued four post-dated cheques pursuant to the Consent Agreement dated 21.04.2013, the said cheques were never presented for encashment by respondent no. 1 and, consequently, no fresh complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act were ever instituted on that ground. Thus, the situation of two parallel prosecutions, which weighed with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimpex (P) Ltd. (supra), simply does not arise in the present case. More importantly, the petitioners and the respondent no. 1 herein themselves had consciously agreed, as per Clause 6 of the Consent Agreement, that in the event of default in making any of the agreed payments, respondent no. 1 would be at liberty to proceed with the pending complaint cases. Thus, unlike Gimpex (P) Ltd. (supra), where the complainant had chosen to prosecute the dishonour of the subsequent cheques, respondent no. 1, in the present case, has acted strictly in accordance with the terms of the settlement itself by continuing the complaint cases already pending against the petitioners. The conti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndividuals from being subjected to multiple trials or punishments for the same offense and does not bar simultaneous institution of proceedings under civil and criminal law. Civil imprisonment in execution of a decree cannot be equated to punishment for an offence and therefore the principle of double jeopardy has no applicability in the present case. In complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, dishonour of a cheque is a cognizable offence subject to fulfilment of condition precedent as laid down in the proviso appended thereto. The cause of action for institution of the civil suit is grant of loan whereas that of the criminal case was return of a cheque inter alia on the premise that the account of the accused was insufficient to honour it or that it exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement with the Bank. Both the proceedings may be instituted simultaneously. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra, (2009) 13 SCC 729 held as under: 8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceeding at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact requi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2009 SCC OnLine Del 259, Hon'ble High Court held as under: 13. Thus, in the facts of this case two sets of offence have been disclosed categorically and clearly, that is offence of cheating in relation to the complaint subject matter of the CBI investigation and commission of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act on account of non-payment of the cheque amount within the time prescribed for which the notice was issued to the petitioner by the complainant in accordance with the scheme of the provisions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is not a case of double jeopardy inasmuch as separate punishments are provided for the two set of offences, that is for dishonouring of the cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act which cannot exonerate the petitioner for having committed other offences under Section 420/477A/120B IPC to have cheated the complainant on the basis of false assurance given by him supported by the bankers etc. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 621 held that to attract the principle of Double Jeopardy enshrined under Article 20(2) of the constitution of India and section 300 Cr.PC., the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Sessions Court. 124. The law on the issue is fairly well-settled. Proceedings for recovery of money through a civil suit and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act operate in distinct fields and are founded on different causes of action. Only because both proceedings arise out of the same commercial transaction does not render either of them impermissible. The object, nature and consequences of the two proceedings are entirely different. While a civil proceeding is intended to secure recovery of the amount due, prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act is for commission of a statutory offence arising from the dishonour of a cheque and the failure to make payment despite receipt of the statutory notice. 125. In D. Purushotama Reddy v. K. Sateesh: (2008) 8 SCC 505, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - it is beyond any doubt that, in respect of the same transaction, both a civil suit for recovery and criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act are maintainable and may continue simultaneously. 126. Similarly, in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra: (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the pendency or adjudication of a civil pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i.e., the detention of the judgment-debtor in civil prison. The execution proceedings were thereafter closed only because the decree-holder had not sought any other mode of execution. The order does not record that the decretal amount had been recovered or that the decree stood satisfied. 130. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 also rightly drew the attention of this Court to Section 58(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which expressly provides that a judgment-debtor shall not be discharged from his debt merely by reason of his detention in civil prison. Thus, detention in civil prison is only one of the modes of execution of a decree and does not result in satisfaction or discharge of the decretal liability. 131. However, the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act stand on an entirely different footing. Section 138 creates a statutory offence, and upon conviction, the Court is empowered to award the punishment prescribed therein, which may include imprisonment as well as fine. The detention of a judgment-debtor in civil prison in execution of a money decree can, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, be equated with a sentence a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt shall be given due adjustment while computing the balance amount of fine/compensation payable by the petitioners, to the respondent no. 1, pursuant to the impugned judgment. 137. Insofar as the prayer of the petitioners seeking the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act is concerned, this Court, after giving its thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, is not inclined to extend such benefit. 138. While considering whether an accused is entitled to be released on probation, the Court is required to examine not only his antecedents and how he conducts himself in the society, but also his conduct before the Court of law and the manner in which he has conducted himself throughout the judicial proceedings. 139. In the present case, the conduct of petitioner no. 1 has assumed relevance since the record reveals that on multiple occasions, undertakings were furnished before the Court, but the same were not honoured. During the civil proceedings as well as the execution proceedings before the Coordinate Benches of this Court, undertakings were given regarding payment of the amounts due towards the complainant. Those undertakings, however, remained ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner no. 1 stated before this Court that 'he was not willing to pay any amount to the complainant and would rather go to jail five times than returning the money.' 142. Needless to state that in case a litigant wishes to choose path of imprisonment rather than abiding by multiple undertakings given by him in the Court, it is entirely his choice. Law is not a script that can be rewritten at the will of an actor, nor can legal positions be altered with every change of strategy whosoever the litigant may be. Courts adjudicate on the basis of settled legal principles and the record before them, and apply law equally to all, and expect from every litigant fairness and respect for the judicial process, the present litigant cannot be an exception to this rule. 143. In the above-mentioned circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner no. 1 does not deserve the discretionary benefit of release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The prayer is, accordingly, rejected. (iii) Conclusion 144. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no infirmity in the common judgment dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court inso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erms. C. Final Order 149. In view of the foregoing discussion and the conclusions recorded hereinabove, the following directions are passed: (i) CRL.REV.P. Nos. 797/2024, 798/2024, 799/2024, 800/2024, 801/2024, 802/2024 and 803/2024, along with all pending applications, are dismissed as being barred by limitation. Consequently, the judgments dated 13.04.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court and 21.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, are affirmed. (ii) CRL.M.C. Nos. 4870/2024, 4871/2024, 4872/2024, 4873/2024, 4876/2024, 4878/2024, 4879/2024, 4880/2024, 4881/2024, 4882/2024, 4883/2024, 4884/2024, 4885/2024 and 4886/2024, alongwith all pending applications, are disposed of in the above terms. The prayer seeking quashing of the complaint cases is rejected. The common judgment dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Court is upheld, subject only to the modification in the quantum of fine as directed in the preceding paragraphs, on account of the further amount of Rs.2.25 crores deposited by the petitioners before this Court and released in favour of responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d its aow film namely 'ATA PATA LAAPATA' is under ja distribullan/release in the cinema halls in india and abroad. WHEREAS the FIRST PARTY is capable of managing und providing the funds required. BY THE SECOND PARTY and on the request of the Second Party has agree to Police Chle/ Executive Ofic à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ गैर नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤• दस रà¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡ रà¥. 10 TEN RUPEES Rs. 10 दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ DELHI 34AA 638551 shall include all dies and indirekterendeoblicity, administrative expenses relating to production and upto release of the said film in cinema bells, interest and finance cost and all other expenses relating thereto by whatsoever naise called, That the time line for completion of the production of the film and its release for activities relating to production and ins release (including necessary statutory approvals/certificates etc.) shall be obtained by the SECOND PARTY . The Ponsibility os he PARTY. responsibility for obtaining all necessary approvals, permissions, licenses sie. from the relevant authorities shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....°à¥.10 Rs.10 INDIA INDIA NON JUDICIA 34AA 638557 12. The the SECOND PARTY berry spacey derwel heel authority and within the limits prescribed under any law and does not violate/contradicts, any terms and conditions of any other agreement entered into with any other party. 13. That all the liabilities and responsibilities for producing the said film and its way be responsible for any seslan er omission done by the SECOND PARTY relating to the production of the sald film and its release. consequences relating to the sacs shil be solely that of the SECOND PARTY. N /PROSTOR For MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Chief Executive Officer 9 - 7. That the SECOND PARTY shall deposit with the FIRST PARTY 10 (en) . do post dated cheques as per detalls given below, aggregating to (Rupees eight crores only) as security cheques towards the refund in pure 7(2) and.200 la referred to para 6 and also the payment referred to and 7(b) above : dates mentioned in para 5. 200 4pm by the SECOND PARTY within the the security cheques and the FIRST PARTY shall be entitled to lodge in the Bank all de cheques or the cheques covering the amount in default (rounded off SECOND P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 INDIA ON JUDICIA दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ DELHI . The Music Audio/Video rights, CD/DVDInternet Rights, Satellite Rights, Channel Rights, Export/Internation ( Rivits esc, shall also be assigned by the SECOND rights in the form of Laborniery Leter . 40. That the SECOND PARTY hereby specifically declares that security(ies) for loan by way of Laborate "+ Letter conveying the rights on the negatives of the above stid film "ATA PATA LAAPATA", as mentioned in para 8 above and was rightis as mentioned in pare 9 above, have not been or otherwise and that the , il seraitwieniemer to, or advance te, taken by ! . id security(ies) is/are free from any encumbrarce, lien, 1. charge, demand, clim, agelmesi cic. 1. That the SECOND "\"hereby birlares and undertakes that it shall not create. permission from the HAST PARTY. à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ गैर नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤• TEN RUPEES रà¥. 10 Rs. 10 INDIA ION JUDICI 34AA 638558 1 IS. The ! PARTY shall not be liable for loss, if any, that may be suffered by the SECUND due to any ressor including non completion of the film, delay i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urisdiction over DELHI. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have put their respective seals/hands on the day UU Common seal of the within named Company In the pepionce of its director Shri Divya Kumar Agarwal Director of the Board of Directors dated 25% Mas, 2010 the presence of its irecoge Mr. Rajpal Navr (Ralsat Navrang Yadav ) Radha Rajpal, Yadav (") Common seal of the within named Company hereunto affixedvar Edutainment Pvc. Ltd. is in the presence of its director Mrs. Radha Rajpal Yadav Witnesses :. (2) P à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¥€à¤¯ गैर नà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¯à¤¿à¤• दस रà¥à¤ªà¤¯à¥‡ रà¥. 10 TEN RUPEES Rs.10 INDIA NDIA NON JUDICIAL दिलà¥à¤²à¥€ DELHI 34AA 638552 WHEREAS the THIRD PARTY, the FOURTH PARTY and the FIFTH PARTY have. leverelly and jointly, seneed to be che pure lust for the due fulfillment of termos and conditions of this agreement and also repayment of principal amount of funds advanced By the FIRST PARTY to the SECOND PARTY along with the agreed amount of retum NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT HAVE REACHED ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EAS to secure the repayment of aforesaid amount of loan and other payments as described above aggregating to Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores only) within the due dates, the Second Party had given its post dated cheques to the First Party as under: SI No Check No Datad Amount gần brann en 317810 Total ... WHEREAS since the Second Party has not been able to make the payments which have already fallen due, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, these cheques ceased to be the security cheques and tre liable to be lodged into the Banit by the First Party. WHEREAS the Second Party approached the First Party personally as well as through telephonically requesting not to lodge the above said cheques into the Bank and to grant s further time of one month in respect of the amounts falling due on 31" March, 2011 under the Agreement which, despite the urgent need of funds by the First Party itself, was favourably considered by the First Party. However, the Second Party, till the date of this agreement, could not make the payments of the above amounts i.e., the amount of Rs. 6.00,00,000- (Rupees Six Crores only) which originally fell due on 31" Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty, Opet Chroma, Juhu, Ville Parle, Mumbai - 400049 (hereinafter referred to as "FOURTH PARTY' which expression shall, unless repugnant to the context and meaning thereof, be deemed to include her legal heirs and successors) in her individualcapacity as Guarantor. WHEREAS the SECOND PARTY is in the business of producing and distributing the films in India and abroad and for completion and release of its new film namely *ATA PATA LAAPATA' , it was in need of funds. WHEREAS the FIRST PARTY provided the loan of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores caly) to the Second Party vide agreement dated 30 May, 2010 as per terms and conditions mentioned therein (hereinafter referred to as the 'Agreement"). WHEREAS the THIRD PARTY and the, FOURTH PARTY have, severally and jointly, gastunteed the due fulfillment of terms and conditions of the said agreement and also repayment of principal amount of funds lent by the FIRST PARTY 10 the SECOND PARTY along with the agreed amount of return on loan and payment of other expenses ea its lpan advanced, within due dates as mentioned in the Agreement. WHEREAS as per terms and conditions of the said loan agreement, the due dates ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irty Two only) as mentioned hereinabove, aggregating to Rs. 9,38,06,332/- (Rupees Nine Crores Thirty Eight Laca Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Two only) on or before the revised due dates as mentioned above, The Guarantors namaly the THIRD PARTY and the FOURTH PARTY, severally and jointly, also.heroby guarantee to the First Party for due fulfillment of the terms and conditions of this agreement by the Second" Party. Further, notwithstanding any other recourse open to the FIRST PARTY, the Guarantors namely the THIRD PARTY and the FOURTH PARTY, severally and jointly, undertake to pay, without demur and on demand from the FIRST PARTY, the amount of R$, 938,06,332/- (Rupees Nine Crores Thirty. Eight Lacs Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Two only) PLUS the amount of Interest enloulated as per pare 19 of the Agreement dated 30 May, 2010, from the due dates till the date of notual/payment of the aforesaid amounts to the First Party. 7. Further, any action or inaction on the part of the First Party to enforce the security cheque(s) or non enforcement of any of the provisions of the Agreement against the Second Party shall not operate or constitute'a waiver of the provision itse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DELHI - This SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT executed this 4th day of April, 2012 at Delhi between MURLI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered ofice at 304, Roots Tower. Laxmi Nagar politiet Center. Dalhi-110092 through its Chief Executive Officer Shri mun oneway 2010 Cherelafter referred to as "panty of the FIRST PART" which expression shall. unless repugnant so the context and meaning thereof , be desired to include is nominees . # "assignacs and successors) AND SHREE NAURANG GODAVARI ENTERTAINMENT LTD., (earlier known as Shree Nourang Godavari Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.,) a company registered under the Indian f Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Ofice as well as the Operating Office now at 8-53, 209 Govt. Hsg Scheme, Siddhartha Nagar, Phase 2, Near Prabodhan Theatre, Voregaon West, Mumbai-400104 through its director son Rajpal Navrang Yadav, duly the context and meaning thereof, be deemed to include lul successors, executors and administrators), M 0 SECOND PART vide agreement dated 30° May. 2010 as per terms and conditions wennes herein (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Agre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a and abroad and for completion and release of its azwe film namely "ATA PATA LAAPATA" , it was in need of funds. WHEREAS at the request of the party of the SECOND PART, the party of the FIRST PART provided a Ican of Rs 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fife Crores only) to the party of the y 11 due dates, the party of the SECOND PART had given its post dated cheques to the party of the FIRST PART as under S. No Cheque No Caxd Cheque Drawn on WHEREAS the party of the SECOND PART was not able to make the payments which fell due, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement dated 30" May. 2010. * WHEREAS the Second Party approached the First Party personally as well as through funber ilme of ankermonth In tripses of ole amounts falling due on 31" March, 2011 under the Agreement which, despite the urgent need of funds by the party of the FIRST itself,was FIRST PART. However, PART iell, was favourably considered by the party of the other chove amounts ie the ne mets faces Six. Crates only) which originally fell due on 31". 0 March, 2011 and also the amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs only) which fell due on 30 April, 2011, the amount of Rs. 70.00.000/- (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Interest cic. viereon till 300 April, 2012 as above. aggregating . 10 oven Hundred For Five only), outstanding and payable by the party of the SECO " PART to the party of the FIRST PART , has been further agreed to be revised as per the amount at the dates of Post Dated Cheques being given by . the vaty of the SECOND Phải; 16 the party of the FIRST PART as mentienul Z 3. That an additional amount towards the interest calculated at the agreed rate as mentioned 'in pars 19 of the Agreement on the aforesaid entire. tem . ok Seven Hundred Forty Five only): shall farther be payable by the party of the SECOND PART in the Party of the FIRST PART in respect of the period from 1" May, 2012 till the actual dete of payment. 4. That the 6 (six) no. of Post Dated cheques aggregating to Rs. 9,38.06,332/- (Rupees Nine Crores Thirty Eight Lacs Six Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Two Ce *For NURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Nh Chiel Exotave Officer · P M DIRECTOR 5. That the above said Post Dated Choques are towards the payment of the ach! . outstanding, due and payable by the party of the SECOND PART to the party of the FIRST PART. under the Agresrient 6. That the payment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Naurang Godavari Entertainment Ltd,is of Board of Directors dated 25" May 2011 in the presence of its director Mr. Rajpal Navrang Yadav 4 GRETE (Repel Navrang Yadav ) Guarantor (in individual capacity) (Radha Rajpal Yadav) Guarantor (in individual capacity) Witnesses : DIRECTOR Cial Executive OF cer only) which were given by the party of the SECOND PART to the Party of the PART, fund 21ª Seriember at Der FIRST PART. vide Supplementary Agreement dated 21" September, 2011, as per the party of de sucoun post og returned by the party of the FIRST PARI lo poprad the party of the SECOND PART., The party of the SECOND drawn in favour of the party of the FIRST PART, towards the payment of the aforesald amount of Ra. 10,72.52.745/- payable under the Agreement as under: Details of Post Dated Cheques being given by the pariy of the SECOND Chequé No. Dased Amount (Ra.) Cheques Drawn on 013594 Ten (10) theques for Rs 1.00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) each and one cheque for Rs. 72.52,745/- (Rupees Seventy Two Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Five only) (F/ DIRECTOR W Ty. # 0 para 19 of the Agreement dated 30" May. 2040 i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." March 2012 la hereby agreed, acknowledged and confirmed at Rs. 10,46.71,797/- (Rupees Ten Crores " Forty Six Les Seventy One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Seven only) WHEREAS at the request of the party of the SECOND PART, the party of the FIRST PART inspite of the immediate and urgent need of funds for itself has reluctantly agreed to accept the request of the party of the SECOND PART to extend the due date for payments in respect of the local ouistanding amount including the interest etc, calculated til 30° April, 2012, as mentioned hereinafter. For MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD. DIRECTOR DML 1.4. 0 0 For MURLI PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Kh Chief Executive Oficer party of the FOURTHI PART, severally and jointly, undertake to pay, without demor and co demand from the party of the FIRST PART, lhe amount of sequand on PART. las Seven Hundred Forty Five only) PLUS the amount of interest calculated as per para 19 of the Agreement dated 30" May. 2010. L.e. @ 36% (Thirty percent) per anaum from !" May. 2012 till the date of selual payment of the aforesaid amounts to the party of the FIRST PART. 9. Further, any action or inaction en the part of the party of the F....