Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Thanvi Associates vs M/S Jai Jagdish Transport on 24 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA NATH
KHATAI
Date: 2025.07.28
11:01:52 +0530
2025:CGHC:35947
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2313 of 2025
1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K.
Bhaskara Rao, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba
Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India)
2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years
Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan
Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
(India)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o
Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address- G- 32, Hira Arcade, Pandri,
Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur
(C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
CRMP No. 2315 of 2025
1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Tanvi Associates, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan 2 Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address- G-32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt. Raipur, C.G 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur, C.G. (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2317 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden Ward No. 27, Visakhapatna, Andhra Pradesh (India) (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address - G - 32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2318 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 3 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address- G- 32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2319 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address- G- 32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2321 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address- C-11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 4 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address- C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India)...............(Details Correctly Mentioned.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address- G-32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur (Chhattisgarh)............(Details Correctly Mentioned.) ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2322 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) (Details Correctly Mentioned) 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Tanvi Associates, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address- G-32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt. Raipur, C.G (Details Correctly Mentioned) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur, C.G. (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2327 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 5 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address - G - 32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Details Correctly Mentioned) ... Respondent(s) CRMP No. 2328 of 2025 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Partner K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) 2 - K. Nageshwara Rao S/o K. Bhaskara Rao Aged About 55 Years Proprietor M/s Thanvi Associates, Address - C 11, 2 Sara Mala Pawan Enclave, Daba Garden, Ward No. 27, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (India) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Partner Vivek Agrawal S/o Kailashchand Agrawal, Office Address - G - 32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) (Details correctly mentioned) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 6 24/07/2025
1. Since these 9 petitions have arisen out of the similar incident in respect of the petitioners herein, the question of law and facts also being similar in these petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These petitions under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 have been filed against the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Criminal Appeals 237/2025, 238/2025, 234/2025, 235/2025, 233/2025, 230/2025, 231/2025, 232/2025 & 236/2025 whereby the appellate Court has rejected the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 148 of the N.I. Act seeking exemption from depositing 20% of the fine/compensation amount.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Respondent No.1 M/s Jai Jagdish Transport through proprietor Vivek Agrawal lodged a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short "the N.I. Act") against petitioner M/s Thanvi Associates through proprietor K. Nageshwara Rao, in which the cheques No. 000481 dated 13/09/2022, 000476 dated 01.09.2022, 000477 dated 05.09.2022, 000480 dated 09.09.2022, 000484 dated 17.09.2022, 000483 dated 16.09.2022, 000502 dated 12.08.2022, 000482 dated 15.09.2022 & 000479 dated 08.09.2022 for the amount of Rs 20,00,000/- in each cheque given by the petitioner for his full or partial discharge of the loan or legal liability in favour of respondent No.1 were dishonoured due to insufficient fund.
4. The JMFC, Raipur, vide order dated 24.04.2025, convicted the petitioner under section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and directed to deposit fine/compensation of Rs.20,00,000 under Section 357(3) CrPC in each case i.e. Criminal Case Nos. 6422/2022, 6020/2022, 7 6019/2022, 6016/2022, 6421/2022, 6419/2022, 5841/2022, 6420/2022 & 6017/2022. The said order dated 24.04.2025 was assailed by the petitioner before 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur along with applications under Section 148 of the N.I. Act seeking exemption from depositing 20% of the fine/compensation amount i.e. Rs.4,00,000/- in each case till the final disposal of the appeals. The appellate Court vide impugned order dated 29.05.2025 rejected the said applications of the petitioner leading to the filing of these 9 petitions.
5. The petitioner is saying that he has no income and he is submitting his income tax return before this Court but the same was not presented before the appellate Court. There are 9 similar cases of cheque bounce of Rs.20,00,000 against the petitioner. The petitioner was given 60 days time to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount. The order under challenge is dated 29.05.2025. The present petitions were filed on 14.07.2025. But till date the petitioner has not made any effort for compliance of the said order. All the cheques are of the year 2022. Three years have passed. Despite the conviction and sentence from the trial court, the complainant has not yet received even partial relief. The appellate Court itself has passed a reasoned order keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (2023) 10 SCC 446. Considering all these facts, the petitions are not found to be bona fide. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the appellate Court.
6. Accordingly, all these 9 CRMPs are dismissed at the motion stage itself.
Sd Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai