Allowed

Sita Ram S/O Shri Heera Lal Saini v. Smt. Manju Soni W/O Shree Radheshyam Soni

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2025CRLMP/4033/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged an appellate court order imposing a 20% deposit condition under Section 148 NI Act without recorded reasons. Relying on Jamboo Bhandari (Supreme Court), the High Court set aside the order and remanded, permitting the petitioner to seek exemption within a week.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.05.2025 set aside; matter remitted to the appellate court with liberty to apply for waiver of the 20% deposit by 18.07.2025.

Sita Ram S/O Shri Heera Lal Saini Vs Smt. Manju Soni W/O… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:25960]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4033/2025

¶4

Sita Ram S/o Shri Heera Lal Saini, Resident Of Flat No. 302 Third Floor, Sangeet Mahal Apartment, Ramlila Ground Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajastan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Manju Soni W/o Shree Radheshyam Soni, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 307, Third Floor, Sangeet Mahal Apartment, Ramlila Ground Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

12/07/2025

¶13

;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds varxZr vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 15-05-2025 ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZ dks 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k /kkjk 148 izkdzE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr tek djus ds vkns'k fn, gS mls vikLr djus gsrq izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶14

;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky; ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k lhdj }kjk vkijkf/kd fu;fer vihy la[;k 86@2025 esa ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 15-05-2025 ds }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ltk LFkfxr djrs gq, ;g 'krZ vf/kjksfir dh xbZ gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ vf/kjksfir jkf'k 3]26]000@& #i, dh 20 izfr'kr jkf'k vkns'k dh fnukad ls 60 fnol ds Hkhrj fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa tek djk,A

[2025:RJ-JP:25960]

[CRLMP-4033/2025]

(2 of 3)

bl lanHkZ esa fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph }kjk ;g izdV fd;k x;k gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS og fcuk ;qfDr;qDr vk/kkj of.kZr djrs gq, ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA

¶19

bl lanHkZ esa fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and ors.: cr. Appeal No. 2741/2023 fu.kZ; fnukad 04-09-2023 ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; dk voyac fy;k x;k gSA

¶20

cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶21

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. ,oa vU; ds izdj.k esa isjk ua- 9 esa fuEufyf[kr er izdV fd;k gS&%

¶22

"9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not."

¶23

bl lanHkZ esa mijksDr er ls ;gh rF; izdV gksrk gS fd vkiokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa U;k;ky; bl rF; dks ns[k ldrk gS fd tks {kfriwfrZ dh jkf'k /kkjk 148 izkdzE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr 20 izfr'kr dh vf/kjksfir jkf'k dh xbZ gS og ;qfDr;qDr gS ;k ughaA izLrqr izdj.k esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk bl izdkj dks dksbZ vkosnu vihy ds lkFk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dk izdj.k vkiokfnd ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vkrk gS rFkk ;kfpdkdrkZ 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k tks /kkjk 148 izkdzE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr of.kZr gS mlls NwV ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA

¶24

bl ifjizs{; esa ;kph ds vf/koDrk }kjk nkSjkus cgl esa ;g lhfer izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS fd ,slh fLFkfr esa lacaf/kr U;k;ky; ds le{k ;fn ;kfpdkdrkZ mDr 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k dh NwV ds lanHkZ esa dksbZ vkosnu

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4033/2025]

¶26

[2025:RJ-JP:25960]

¶27

izLrqr djrk gS rks mDr vkosnu ij vihyh; U;k;ky; nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds mijkar fu;ekuqlkj ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k djus ds vkns'k fn, tk,A

¶28

;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk dh xbZ mDr lhfer izkFkZuk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izdj.k esa vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fnukad 15-05-2025 vikLr fd;k tkdj ekeyk iqu% lacaf/kr vihyh; U;k;ky; dks izfrisf"kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vihyh; U;k;ky; dks ;g funsZ'k fn, tkrs gSa fd ;fn ;kfpdkdrkZ ,d lIrkg ds varxZr vFkkZr~ fnukad 18-07-2025 rd ;fn /kkjk 148 izkdzE; foys[k vf/kfu;e ds varxZr 20 izfr'kr dh jkf'k dh NwV fn, tkus gsrq dksbZ vkosnu izLrqr djrk gS rks mDr vkosnu ij ;kfpdkdrkZ ,oa ifjoknh i{k dks lqudj fu;ekuqlkj ;Fkk'kh?kz fuLrkfjr djsxhA ;fn ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk fnukad 18-07-2025 rd bl izdkj dk dksbZ vkosnu vihyh; U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k tkrk gS rc ,slh fLFkfr esa vihyh; U;k;ky; vkns'k fnukad 15-05-2025 dh ikyuk esa ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fo#) fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= jgsaxsA

¶29

mijksDr vuqlkj mDr ;kfpdk dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkrk gSA

¶30

RAMESHWAR PRASHAD /56

Sita Ram S/O Shri Heera Lal Saini v. Smt. Manju Soni W/O Shree Radheshyam Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram S/O Shri Heera Lal Saini v. Smt. Manju Soni W/O Shree Radheshyam Soni

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

Ramavtar Gupta Son of Shri Indra Lal Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Birsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar S/O Late Shri Kesariya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hukumchand Son of Shri Laxminarain Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramnath @ Pilot S/O Rajaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Puspendra Singh Rathore S/O Shri Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan