Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Cheque Bounce Case Against Man Who 'Avoided' Arrest For 12 Years
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a man's quashing petition booked in a cheque bouncing case sought on the ground of compromise between parties, after noting that the plea was in effect a "review" of an earlier revision petition which had already been dismissed by the court last year. In doing so the high court refused to interfere with a coordinate bench's decision...
The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a man's quashing petition booked in a cheque bouncing case sought on the ground of compromise between parties, after noting that the plea was in effect a "review" of an earlier revision petition which had already been dismissed by the court last year.
In doing so the high court refused to interfere with a coordinate bench's decision dismissing the man's review plea, who was sentenced to one year jail time in 2011 by the trial court, but was only arrested in September this year as he had contested the decision.
A single judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain in its order noted that a coordinate single judge bench of the high court after considering the compromise entered in between the parties, exercised its revisionary powers and, based on the same set of facts dismissed the man's plea on August 21, 2023.
Thereafter, the high court said, no appeal/petition was preferred before the Supreme Court or any Higher Court against the August 2023 dismissal order, thereby rendering the dismissal order final and conclusive.
Referring to Section 362, CrPC, read with Section 397(3), the high court said that it was evident that the Code did not confer any power qua review upon the Court.
It said, "Further, taking note of Section 362 of Cr.P.C., and considering the dictum cited in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Narayan Prasad (Supra) qua the same, wherein it is held that the provisions of Section 362 of Cr.P.C are absolute. However, considering the provision of Section 362 of Cr.P.C read with Section 397 (3) of Cr.P.C, it is evident that the Code does not confer any power qua review upon the Court. Prima facie it appears to the Court that the present petition is, in essence, akin to a review petition, therefore due to the prohibition imposed by the above stated Section this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench".
For context, Section 362, CrPC provides that no Court shall alter or review a judgment or final order given by it except for correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. Section 397(3), CrPC provides that if an application for revision was made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Proceedings under Section 138 (cheque dishonour) Negotiable Instruments Act, were initiated against the petitioner in 2007 which resulted in a conviction in 2011 by the Trial Court. Appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the Appellate Court in 2011. Following a compromise between parties, the petitioner moved a revision petition against the dismissal of appeal before a coordinate single judge bench of the high court but that was also dismissed.
The Coordinate bench of the Court held that pursuant to the conviction order in 2011, the petitioner had not surrendered or remained in custody, and for 12 years, he had been avoiding the due process of law, hence, the revision petition was dismissed for non-compliance.
In the present petition filed on the basis of compromise, the counsel for the petitioner argued that even post-conviction and after dismissal of appeal, if parties reached a compromise, the criminal proceedings could be quashed because proceedings under Section 138 was primarily a civil wrong carrying penal consequences.
The Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter submitted that the question of law for consideration was, “Whether an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court/equivalent Court in the criminal revision petition confirming the conviction can be nullified by the Hon'ble High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C noticing subsequent compromise of the case by the contesting parties?”
It was submitted that the present petition was essentially a review petition behind the "smokescreen of a quashing petition" and in light of Section 362 and 397(3), the review of the order was barred and could not be entered by the Court on same set of facts.
It was argued that exercise of power under Section 482 was subject to the restriction imposed under Section 362, CrPC and thus, a petition under Section 482, CrPC was not maintainable for reviewing or recalling a judgment which was already passed by the Co-ordinate bench which duly considered the compromise while confirming the order of conviction. The counsel said that the appropriate forum to address the issue would have been the Supreme Court.
Refusing to interfere with the decision of the Coordinate Bench, the high court dismissed the quashing petition.
Case Title: Omprakash Chauhan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 325
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Jain; Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta; Mr. Prashant Khandelwal; Mr. Arpit Gupta
For Respondent(s): Mr. M.S. Shekhawat (PP); Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj (AC) with Mr. Shatanu Sharma; Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma