Allowed

Rajeev Dhunna @ Jyoti @ Rajeev Soni @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLMP/1050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jodhpur, on a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, allowed the concurrent running of substantive sentences for cheque dishonour offences but held that default sentences for non-payment of fines must run consecutively unless fines are paid.

What did the court decide?

Substantive sentences ordered to run concurrently; default sentences to run consecutively unless fines are paid.

Rajeev Dhunna @ Jyoti @ Rajeev Soni @ Rajeev Kumar Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

(1 of 4) [CRLMP-1050/2024]

¶2

[2024:RJ-JD:21155]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1050/2024

¶5

Rajeev Dhunna @ Jyoti @ Rajeev Soni @ Rajeev Kumar S/o Dalveer Dhunna, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Gali No. 08, Setiya Farm Colony, Near Guru Ramdas Gurudwara, Near Komal Silai Centre, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Sri Ganganagar)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Baltej	Singh Sandhu.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mohd.	Javed Gouri,PP.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

10/05/2024

¶14

By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶15

“ It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully, prayed that this Criminal Misc. (Petition) may kindly be allowed and it may kindly be ordered to execute/run the sentences concurrently passed in impugned orders dated 10.01.2018 (Annex.-01), 18.01.2024 (Annex.-02) and 18.01.2024 (Annex.-03) by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.655/2012, 218/2015 and 198/2016 respectively.”

¶16

Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present criminal misc. petition are that the petitioner was tried, convicted and sentenced by different trial courts for the offences punishable

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:21155]

[CRLMP-1050/2024]

under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, details whereof is being given

¶21

here under:

¶22

Sr. No.	Case No.	Court		Date of Decision	Sentence Fine/Compensation	Appeal
1.	655/2012	Special Act No.01, Gangan	J.M. (NI Cases) Sri agar	10.01.2018	1 years S.I. and to pay a compensation of Rs.2,20,000 and on default of compensation further undergo 3 months S.I.	Rejected
2.	218/2015	Special Act No.02, Gangan	J.M. (NI Cases) Sri agar	18.01.2024	1 years S.I. and to pay a compensation of Rs.1,72,000 and on default of compensation further undergo 2 months S.I.	Confess the crime
3.	198/2016	Special Act No.02, Gangan	J.M. (NI Cases) Sri agar	18.01.2024	6 months S.I. and to pay a compensation of Rs.83,750 and on default of compensation further undergo 15 days S.I.	Confess the crime

¶23

Learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the present case is squarely covered by a decision rendered in the case of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2883/2014 (Rajendra Kabra vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 17.02.2017 wherein, a coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to hold as under:

¶24

“Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, offence involved, sentences awarded, period of detention of the petitioner as on date and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. MadanLal, V.K.Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Shyam Palvs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. and Ammavasai & Anr. vs. Inspector of Police & Ors. (supra), I am of the considered view that it would not be inconsistent with the administration of criminal justice if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of discretion contained in section 427 of the Code to meet the ends of justice. However, as per the law laid

[2024:RJ-JD:21155]

[CRLMP-1050/2024]

(3 of 4)

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya & Anr. (supra), the direction for concurrent running of sentences would be limited only to the substantive sentences alone.

¶29

In such circumstances, the present misc. petition is allowed and it is ordered that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioner in the above referred 32 cases would run concurrently, however, the petitioner will have to serve default sentences as the provisions of section 427 of the CrPC do not permit a direction for concurrent running of substantive sentences with the sentences awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. The sentences, which the petitioner has been directed to undergo in default of payment of fine/compensation shall not be effected by this direction and if the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the trial courts, the said sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo default sentences(sentences awarded by the trial courts in default of payment of fine/compensation).”

¶30

Having considered the joint submission made by the parties

¶31

at bar, this Court is of the opinion that since all the cases against the petitioner pertain to offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the aforesaid precedent law is applicant in the present case.

¶32

The present criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed, in terms of the above mentioned judgment passed in the Rajendra Kabra (Supra).

¶33

Accordingly, all the substantive sentences imposed upon the petitioner vide judgment dated 10.01.2018 (Regular Case No.655/2022); judgment dated 18.01.2024 (Regular Case No.218/2015); and judgment 18.01.2024 (Regular Case No.198/2016) passed by Special J.M. (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Sri Ganganagar and Special J.M. (N.I. Act Cases) No.2, Sri Ganganagar respectively, are ordered to run concurrently.

¶34

However, the sentences of fine and the sentences in default of payment of fine/compensation imposed upon the petitioner

¶35

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1050/2024]

¶36

[2024:RJ-JD:21155]

¶37

shall not be affected. If the petitioner has not paid the fine/compensation as directed by the learned trial court, the said sentences would run consecutively. Needless to say, if the petitioner pays the fine/compensation now, he is not required to undergo the default sentences (sentences awarded by the learned trial court in default of payment of fine/compensation).

¶38

All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.

¶39

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶40

292-Tikam/-

Rajeev Dhunna @ Jyoti @ Rajeev Soni @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Dhunna @ Jyoti @ Rajeev Soni @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Jeetu Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra @ Ravi Vs State of Rajasthan

Angrej Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Vs State of Rajasthan