Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Nanda Amrut Pirdurkar vs Prince Rajak on 4 November, 2025
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPU R
BEFORE
JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
M.Cr.C. No. 47906 of 2022
SMT NANDA AMRUT PIRDURKAR AND ANOTHER
Versus
PRINCE RAJAK AND ANOTHER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Shri S.R. Tamarkar - Senior Advocate with Shri Ankit Chopra and
Ghanshyam Barman, advocate for the petitioners.
None for the respondents though duly served.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 09.10.2025
Pronounced on : 04.11.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This M.Cr.C. having been heard and reserved for order, coming on for
pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal pronounced the
following:
ORDER
This M.Cr.C. has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners for setting aside the entire execution proceedings of MJCR No. 1008/2017 pending before JMFC, Jabalpur as well as to set aside arrest warrant issued against petitioners for recovery of Rs. 1,53,000/- dated 11.07.2022. 2
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of present petition are that one Amrut Pirdurkar was convicted by the trial Court for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act vide judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed in Criminal case No. 5362/2011 (Prince Rajak Vs. Amrut Pirdurkar) and sentenced under Section 138 of N.I. Act with simple imprisonment of 1 year and Amrut Pirdurkar was also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the complainant. Against aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, Amrut Pirdurkar filed criminal Appeal No. 249/2014. During pendency of aforesaid appeal, Amrut Pirdurkar expired and therefore, vide order dated 13.12.2017, 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur dismissed the appeal filed by the Amrut Pirdurkar as having been abated accused. No application was filed on behalf of LR's of Amrut Pirdurkar to continue the appeal. After dismissal of aforesaid appeal as having been abated, complainant filed proceeding before the trial Court for recovery of compensation which was registered as MJCR No. 1008/2017. In aforesaid MJCR case, warrant was issued against petitioners for recovery of compensation amount awarded by the trial Court vide judgment dated 17.04.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 5362/2011. primarily against this proceeding, present petition has been filed.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that vide judgment dated 17.07.2014, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar was sentenced with simple imprisonment and Amrut Pirdurkar was directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- but no sentence of fine was imposed by the trial Court under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Trial Court can impose imprisonment or fine or both. But it cannot award compensation 3 under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is also urged that after filing of appeal by the deceased Amrut Pirdurkar against conviction, Appellate Court suspended the sentence i.e. imprisonment as well as compensation. As per order of Appellate Court, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar deposited Rs. 30,600/- on 12.09.2014. During pendency of appeal, on 03.02.2010 Amrut Pirdurkar expired and therefore, appeal filed by the Amrut Pirdurkar was dismissed as having been abated on 13.12.2017. On 11.07.2022/18.09.2022, arrest warrant/recovery warrant was issued against legal representative of Amrut Pirdurkar for recovery of compensation.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after referring to Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C., submits that if appeal is filed against fine, then, after death of accused, appeal may continue but if appeal is filed against sentence of imprisonment etc., then, as per provision of Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C., appeal shall abate. In the instant case, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar was not sentenced with fine, therefore, appeal was dismissed as having been abated. Hence, complainant should have objected to the abatement of appeal. Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C. does not protect the case in which compensation has been awarded, otherwise, in aforesaid Section term ―sentence‖ should have been used. It is also urged that ―compensation‖ and ―fine‖ are separate and not one and the same. Further, after referring to Section 70 of Cr.P.C. , it is urged that no recovery warrant can be issued. Legal representative of deceased Amrut Pirdurkar are not accused. Therefore, they cannot be convicted and no sentence can be awarded. Therefore, no provision of Cr.P.C. would apply. Principle of vicarious liability also does not apply. Complainant should have filed a suit for 4 recovery of compensation. The only option available before the complainant was to file a suit for recovery of compensation. Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to initiate or continue the proceeding for recovery of compensation from property of deceased Amrut Pirdurkar. Proceedings pending before the trial Court are complete abuse of process of law.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also submits that Section 421 of Cr.P.C. only deals with fine and not with compensation. Nothing can be recovered from LR's of deceased Amrut Pirdurkar. It is also urged that as appeal filed by the appellant/accused (deceased) has already abated. Therefore, the effect of aforesaid abatement would be that no judgment of conviction and sentence exists/survive as of now. There is no provision of recovery of compensation under any provision of IPC and Cr.P.C. Only option available before the complainant is to file a suit for recovery of compensation. With respect to aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred and relied upon M. Abbvas Haji Vs. T.N. Channakeshava, (2019) 9 SCC 606 and Cr.A.-S -77-SB-1999 (Bhola @ Ram Dass Vs. State of Haryana) decided on 30.01.2025.
6. Heard. Perused the record of the case.
Analysis and findings:-
7. Perusal of submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners reveals that primarily following two grounds have been raised by the petitioners in the case :-
5
(i) that, deceased Amrut Pirdurkar was not sentenced with fine, therefore, in view of provision of Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C. as well as appeal filed by the deceased Amrut Pirdurkar having been abated, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court does not survive/is not in existence as of now;
(ii) that, compensation awarded by the Trial Court cannot be recovered from legal representatives of deceased/accused under IPC and Cr.P.C.
8. So far as first submission is concerned, it is correct that learned trial Court has convicted deceased Amrut Pirdurkar under Section 138 of N.I.Act with simple imprisonment of 1 year but no fine was imposed and Trial Court also awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-. There is no dispute with respect to that after deceased Amrut Pirdurkar filed appeal against aforesaid Trial Court's judgment, during pendency of aforesaid appeal, on account of expiry of deceased Amrut Pirdurkar, appeal was dismissed as having been abated.
9. So far as provisions of Section 394 of Cr.P.C. are concerned, Section 394 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
―394 Abatement of appeals.--(1) Every other appeal under section 377 or section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused.
(2) Every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant:6
Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the Appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate.
Explanation.--In this section, ―near relative‖ means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister.‖
10. In this Court's opinion from aforesaid sub Section 2 of Section 394 of Cr.P.C. , it cannot be concluded or inferred that effect of abatement of appeal filed by the deceased/accused Amrut Pirdurkar would be that judgment passed by the Trial Court would also not survive. In this Court's considered opinion, if an appeal stands abated on account of death of accused, then, judgment passed by the trial Court shall remain in existence with all necessary implications. Hence, submissions of learned senior counsel for the petitioners with respect to aforesaid are hereby rejected.
11. So far as recovery of compensation is concerned, before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to refer and reproduce relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 421 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
― 421. Warrant for levy of fine.--(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may 7 take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may--
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357. (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears 8 of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law:
Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender‖
12. Section 431 ofCr.P.C. provides as under:-
―431 Money ordered to be paid recoverable as a fine.--Any money (other than a fine) payable by virtue of any order made under this Code, and the method of recovery of which is not otherwise expressly provided for, shall be recoverable as if it were a fine: Provided that section 421 shall, in its application to an order under section 359, by virtue of this section, be construed as if in the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 421, after the words and figures ―under section 357‖, the words and figures ―or an order for payment of costs under section 359‖ had been inserted."
13. Thus, from aforesaid provisions of law as well as principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijayan Vs. Sadanandan K. and another, (2009) 6 SCC 652 and Kumaran Vs. State of Kerala and another, (2017) 7 SCC 471, it stands clearly established and there is no dispute with respect to proposition of law that if a court, apart from a sentence imposed by him, also awards compensation, then, compensation may be recovered as fine under provisions of Section 421 of Cr.P.C. and 431 of Cr.P.C.
9
14. Now sole issue for adjudication before this Court is whether in the factual matrix of the case, compensation awarded by trial Court, in the instant case, is recoverable or not.
15. Admittedly, in the instant case, learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.07.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 5362/2011 (Prince Rajak Vs. Amrut Pirdurkar) sentenced deceased Amrut Pirdurkar with simple imprisonment of 1 year and no fine was imposed but trial Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/-. Petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Amrut Pirdurkar. Amrut Pirdurkar expired during pendency of appeal and appeal was dismissed as having been abated.
16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred and relied upon M. Abbas Haji (supra) and in this case, appeal was filed against order dated 22.10.2008, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal of the complainant and held the original appellant before us (since deceased), whose legal representatives are on record, liable for conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred to as ―the Act‖). He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year
17. Hon'ble Apex Court in para 3 of M. Abbas Haji (supra) held that the legal heirs, in such a case, are neither liable to pay the fine nor to undergo imprisonment. However, they have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only for the purpose that he was not guilty of any offence. We have, therefore, allowed the application filed by the legal heirs to prosecute this appeal. 10
18. Thus, it is evident from M. Abbas Haji (supra) that in aforesaid case deceased was sentenced with fine and no compensation was awarded, whereas in the instant case, no fine has been imposed by the trial Court and trial Court has only awarded the compensation.
19. Term ―fine‖ and ―compensation‖ are not one and the same and they have different meanings and connotations. With respect to aforesaid, it would be appropriate to refer and reproduce Section 53 of IPC which is as under:-
―53 . Punishments.--The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are-- First,--Death;
(1) [Secondly.--Imprisonment for life;] (2) * * * * * Fourthly.--Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:--
(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;
(2) Simple;
Fifthly.--Forfeiture of property;
Sixthly.--Fine.
20. Thus, from Section 53 of IPC, it is abundantly clear that fine is one of the punishment/mode of sentence and therein compensation is not mentioned as one of the mode of sentence or punishment.
21. Similarly, Section 138 of N.I. Act also provides that .................... be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to 2 years, or with 11 fine which may extend to twice the amount of cheque , or with both. Thus, under Section 138 of N.I.Act also, compensation is not mentioned as one of the mode of sentence or punishment that can be imposed by the trial Court while convicting a person for offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act.
22. Further, a conjoint reading of provisions of N.I. Act as well as code of criminal procedure shows that for trial of offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act apart from provision contained in Sections 142(A), 143, 143(A), 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 of N.I.Act, other provisions of code of criminal procedure would be applicable so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of N.I.Act.
23. Section 143(A) of N.I. Act provides for interim compensation and mode/manner of recovery thereof. Section 143(A) of N.I. Act provides as under:-
"143A. Power to direct interim compensation.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant--
(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and
(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.
(2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque.
(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under subsection (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.12
(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant. (5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section.‖
24. Section 148 of N.I. Act also authorizes Appellate Court to direct appellant to deposit such sum which shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court.
25. Thus, a conjoint reading of provisions of Section 143(A), 138 of N.I. Act and Section 357 of Cr.P.C. clearly establishes/indicates that a Court, while convicting a person for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, may sentence a person with imprisonment or fine or with both and trial Court can also award compensation separately from aforesaid sentence, including a case, where no fine has been imposed as part of sentence.
26. Further, under the law, fine is part of sentence/punishment and compensation is not part of punishment/sentence. Purpose/object of compensation is quite different from that of fine, which is part of sentence/punishment. Object and 13 purpose of compensation is to re compensate the victim/ to make good the damage/injury suffered by the victim. In criminal law, compensation is never awarded as punishment/sentence.
27. Thus, a Court has power and authority to award compensation in a case where it has convicted a person for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and from provisions of law as well as pronouncements referred in preceding paras, it is also evident and there is no dispute with respect to them that compensation can be recovered as fine under Sections 421 and 431 of Cr.P.C.
28. Procedure for recovery of the fine has been provided in Section 421 of Cr.P.C. which is as under:-
"421. Warrant for levy of fine.--(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may--
(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter:
Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357. 14 (2) The State Government may make rules regulating the manner in which warrants under clause (a) of sub-section (1) are to be executed, and for the summary determination of any claims made by any person other than the offender in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. (3) Where the Court issues a warrant to the Collector under clause (b) of sub-section (1), the Collector shall realise the amount in accordance with the law relating to recovery of arrears of land revenue, as if such warrant were a certificate issued under such law:
Provided that no such warrant shall be executed by the arrest or detention in prison of the offender‖
29. Thus, from aforesaid provisions of Section 421 of Cr.P.C., it is evident that in certain cases, when an accused has undergone imprisonment in default, still then, amount of fine may be recovered in the manner as provided in the Section from any movable and immovable property of offender. One such circumstance mentioned in sub-section 1 of section 421 of Cr.P.C. is that when court has directed payment of compensation out of the fine under Section 357 of Cr.P.C.
30. Therefore, in view of discussion in the forgoing paras and having regard to the provisions of law as well as pronouncements Vijayan (supra) and Kumaran (supra) as referred in the preceding paras, in this Court's considered opinion, if in a case, court has awarded compensation and before realization of compensation amount, the person/accused directed to pay the compensation, expires, then, the amount of compensation may be recovered from the property inherited by legal 15 representatives of such person and property of such person shall be liable for the payment of compensation. Though, there would be no personal liability of legal heirs of such person i.e. legal heirs of such person are not liable to be send jail etc./ for any coercive action. Only property of the deceased/accused would be liable for payment of compensation.
31. Hence, in the instant case also, movable or immovable property of deceased/accused Amrut Pirdurkar, if any, inherited by the petitioners, shall be liable for recovery of compensation, subject to all prevailing relevant applicable laws , if any. But petitioners shall not be personally liable for the same and no coercive action can be taken against them in any manner whatsoever.
32. M. Abbas Haji (supra) does not laid down any such principle that in case a Trial Court has awarded compensation that cannot be recovered from property of deceased/accused after death of accused.
33. Hence, in this Court's opinion, principles laid down in M. Abbas Haji (supra) and Bhola @ Ram Dass (supra) do not apply to the facts of the case.
34. Resultantly, in view of discussions in the forgoing paras, in this Court's considered opinion, no case for quashment of proceeding of MJCR No. 1008/2017 pending before JMFC, Jabalpur is made out. Therefore, petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed.
35. But at the same time, it is also correct that under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. warrant for levy of fine has to be issued and not arrest warrant. In the instant case, 16 learned trial Court has wrongly issued arrest warrant under Section 70 of Cr.P.C., which is not permissible under the law. Though, therein a note has been appended that levy warrant for recovery of compensation of Rs. 1,53,000/- from that part of property of deceased which has been received by legal heirs. Therefore, arrest warrant issued by the trial Court is set aside/quashed but Trial court would be at liberty to issue levy warrant in appropriate proforma as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. etc.
36. Petition filed by the petitioners is disposed off accordingly.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE L.R.---
Digitally signed byLALIT SINGH RANA
-
Date: 2025.11.0417:55:14 +05'30'