Rajasthan High Court refuses to quash check bounce case against man who ‘evaded’ arrest for 12 years

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a man’s quashing petition filed in a check bounce case sought on the basis of a compromise between the parties, noting that the plea was in fact a “revision” of an earlier revision petition that had already been rejected. court last year.

However, the high court refused to interfere with the panel’s decision, rejecting the man’s review petition, who was sentenced by the trial court to one year in prison in 2011, but was only arrested in September this year after he challenged the decision.

Single panel of judges Judge Samir Jain In its decision, it was noted that the single bench of judges of the high court, after considering the compromise reached between the parties, exercised its audit powers and, on the basis of the same set of facts, on August 21, 2023, rejected the man’s petition.

Thereafter, as stated by the High Court, no appeal/petition was heard either in the Supreme Court or in any High Court against the order of dismissal dated August 2023, making the order of dismissal final and conclusive.

Referring to Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 397(3), the high court said that it is clear that the Code does not confer any power of review on the Court.

It said: “Further, taking note of Section 362 Cr.PC and taking into account the decision cited in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Narayan Prasad’s case (supra) as the same, wherein it is held that the provisions of Section 362 Cr.PC. PCs are absolute. However, if the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. read with Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. are taken into account, it is clear that the Code does not confer any power of revision on the Court. Prima facie it appears to the Court that the present petition is essentially akin to a review petition and therefore, due to the prohibition imposed by the above section, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision passed by the Coordination Bench.“.

For context, Section 362 CrPC provides that no court can modify or revise a judgment or final order passed by it except to correct a technical or arithmetical error. Section 397(3) CrPC provides that if an application for revision has been made by any person before the High Court or a Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person can be entertained by another of them.

In 2007, proceedings were initiated against the applicant under Section 138 (Cheque Dishonesty) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which resulted in a conviction by the trial court in 2011. An appeal against this conviction was rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2011. Following a compromise between the parties, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Single Judge Bench of the high court, but the same was also dismissed.

The Court’s Coordination Division held that as per the 2011 conviction order, the petitioner had failed to surrender and remain in custody and had evaded due process of law for 12 years, therefore the petition for review was denied on the ground of consent.

In the present compromise petition, the petitioner’s counsel contended that even after judgment and after dismissal of the appeal, if the parties reach a compromise, the criminal proceedings can be quashed since proceedings under Section 138 are primarily a civil offence. bearing criminal consequences.

The Amicus Curiae appointed in this case argued that the issue of law to be considered was as follows: “Can the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court/equivalent court in a criminal revision petition confirming a conviction be quashed by the Hon’ble High Court in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.PC with notice of subsequent compromise of the case by opposing sides?

It was submitted that the present petition was, in essence, a review petition hidden behind a “smokescreen of quashing petition” and in the light of Sections 362 and 397(3), review of the order was barred and could not be commenced by the court on the same principle. set of facts.

It was submitted that the exercise of powers under Section 482 is subject to the limitations imposed by Section 362 CrPC and, therefore, a petition under Section 482 CrPC cannot be maintained for review or withdrawal of the award which has already been passed by the Coordination Bench. which gave due consideration to the compromise, while affirming the order of condemnation. The lawyer said that the appropriate forum to decide this issue would be the Supreme Court.

Refusing to interfere with the decision of the Coordination Panel, the Supreme Court rejected the petition to set aside.

Case name: Omprakash Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

For applicant(s): Mr. Gaurav Jain; Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta; Mr. Prashant Khandelwal; Mr. Arpit Gupta

For the defendant(s): Mr. M.S. Shekhawat (PP); Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj (AC) with Mr. Shatanu Sharma; Mr. Deepak Kumar Sharma

Click here to read/download order