Ranjeeta Mehra v. State & Anr

SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J

JANUARY 04, 2018 gr//

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P. 772/2016 & CRL.M(BAIL) NO. 2109/2016, 1173/2017, CRL.M.A.15987/2017 Order reserved on: 30th November,2017 Order pronounced on: 4th January,2018 RANJEETA MEHRA ...Petitioner Through: Ms. Sunita Arora and Mr. Lucky Tiwari, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR …Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State/ respondent no. 1 with Mr. Manish Lamba, Advocate for respondent no.2. + CRL.REV.P. 774/2016 & CRL.M(BAIL) NO. 2110/2016, 1172/2017 RANJEETA MEHRA ...Petitioner Through: Ms. Sunita Arora and Mr. Lucky Tiwari, Advocates. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR …Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State/ respondent no. 1 with Mr. Manish Lamba, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM: % HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL 1. The present Revision petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 17.10.2016 passed by District & Session Judge (West), Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 54451/2016 & 54450/2016 and impugned judgments dated 06.05.2016 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2016 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Complaint No. 3951/1/11 & 3952/1/11 registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(hereinafter referred as 'NI' Act). 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the complaint was lodged by Respondent No. 2 who alleged that a friendly loan amounting to Rs.7,00,000/- was advanced to the petitioner in two installments in the month of May and August 2009 and in return the petitioner issued six post dated cheques, out of which four cheques were dishonoured when presented in the concerned bank for encashment. The complainant filed two separate complaints under Section 138 NI Act and sent a legal notice dated 21.09.2011 for repayment of the loan amount to the petitioner. On the said complaint, the order dated 06.05.2016 was passed by the learned MM, whereby held her guilty for the offence under Section 138 NI Act for both the complaints and sentenced her to undergo : "simple imprisonment of three months and is ordered to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant and in case of failure to pay the amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment of two months." The said order was challenged before the District and Session Judge, and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2016. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends and limits her arguments on the quantum of sentence, as accorded by the Trial Court. She submits that since the transaction was between the same parties, though there were two loan agreements, the sentences should have been directed to run concurrently. It was suggested by the counsel for the petitioner that the legal position favours the exercise of discretion for the benefit of an accused in cases where prosecution is based on a single transaction even if different complaints thereof may have been filed for dishonour of different cheques. The transactions forming the basis of prosecution relate to the same parties i.e the petitioner and the respondent and therefore the sentences ought to have been ordered to run concurrently. 4. Per contra, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned APP for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the transactions in the present case were not parallel to each other and even the terms and conditions of the transactions were different. Hence, the sentence awarded should not run concurrently. 5. The submissions made by the both the parties have been considered and records perused. 6. After perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, the main issue which require adjudication in the present case is whether the sentence awarded by the Trial Court should concurrently or consecutively. In V.K.Bansal vs State Of Haryana & Ors. reported in