# Mangla Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 804
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-02
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 1228 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mangla-prasad-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51855
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 143A & 148 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406 &
420- Any order challenged in the appeal
and the said appeal was admitted and
pending, thus, one cannot permit a
swinging pendulum to continue swinging
during the pendency of the appeal.(Para -
20)

(B) The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(as amended in 2018) - Section 148 -
Appellate Court discretionary power to
order the appellant to deposit a minimum
of 20% of the fine or compensation during
the appeal against a conviction under
Section 138 - Non-deposition of fine
should not lead to punitive measures like
automatic cancellation of bail. (Para 8,
16-18, 21-22)

Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of NI
Act, 1881 - preferred appeal before Appellate
Court - along with Memo of Appeal moved two
applications - one for granting bail during
pendency of appeal - other for staying operation of
order passed by Trial Court - appeal was admitted
but stay application was rejected - directed the
petitioner to deposit the fine amount within 10
days - in case non-deposition of fine by appellant -
bail order shall stand automatically cancelled -
hence Petition. (Para 1-14)

HELD: - Appellate Court's order directing the
petitioner to deposit the entire fine amount
imposed by the Trial Court without considering
the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is erroneous and against
the law. Petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of
the fine imposed by the Trial Court within 60
days from the date of delivery of judgment. Bail
already granted by the Appellate Court shall
continue till the disposal of the appeal pending
before the Appellate Court. (Para 24-27)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appeal No. 8 of 2023, (Rameshwari Devi and
another vs. Rakesh Mishra) rejecting the
Application filed by the petitioner under
Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for adducing
Additional Evidence at the Appellate Stage is
set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed
to reconsider the petitioners' application in
accordance with the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the Case of Ibrahim Uddin
(Supra) and make all endevour to decide the
Appeal expeditiously in accordance with law
without
granting
any
unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 804
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.04.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 1228 of 2024

Mangla Prasad Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Lal Bahadur Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 143A & 148 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406 &
420- Any order challenged in the appeal
and the said appeal was admitted and
pending, thus, one cannot permit a
swinging pendulum to continue swinging
during the pendency of the appeal.(Para -
20)

(B) The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(as amended in 2018) - Section 148 -
Appellate Court discretionary power to
order the appellant to deposit a minimum
of 20% of the fine or compensation during
the appeal against a conviction under
Section 138 - Non-deposition of fine
should not lead to punitive measures like
automatic cancellation of bail. (Para 8,
16-18, 21-22)

Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of NI
Act, 1881 - preferred appeal before Appellate
Court - along with Memo of Appeal moved two
applications - one for granting bail during
pendency of appeal - other for staying operation of
order passed by Trial Court - appeal was admitted
but stay application was rejected - directed the
petitioner to deposit the fine amount within 10
days - in case non-deposition of fine by appellant -
bail order shall stand automatically cancelled -
hence Petition. (Para 1-14)

HELD: - Appellate Court's order directing the
petitioner to deposit the entire fine amount
imposed by the Trial Court without considering
the provisions of Section 148 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is erroneous and against
the law. Petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of
the fine imposed by the Trial Court within 60
days from the date of delivery of judgment. Bail
already granted by the Appellate Court shall
continue till the disposal of the appeal pending
before the Appellate Court. (Para 24-27)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Surinder Singh Deswal @ Colonel S.S. Deswal
& ors. Vs Virender Gandhi, (2019) SCC 341

2. Jamboo Bhandari Vs M.P. St. Industrial
Development Corp. Ltd. & ors., (2023) 10 SCC
446

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Sri Lal Bahadur Khan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hari
Shanker Bajpai, learned A.G.A.-I for the
State and perused the record.

2. In view of the order proposed to be
passed, notice to opposite party No.2 is
4 All. Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
805
hereby dispensed with as purely legal
question is involved in this case, however,
learned A.G.A-I for the State has accepted
notice on behalf of State-opposite party
No.1.

3. The instant writ petition has been
filed with following main prayer:-

"1. Issue an order or direction
setting aside the impugned order dated
29.02.2024 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Faizabad in Criminal Appeal No.12
of 2024 (Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. Shanti
Roller Mills Ltd. to the extent by which the
learned Appellate Court despite admitting
the appeal has declined to stay the
operation of the impugned order dated
16.02.2024 passed by the learned Trial
Court and thereby has rejected the stay
application (Paper No. 5-B) as contained
in Annexure No.1 to the petition."

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that initially, the present opp.
party no. 2 filed a complaint U/S 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with
Section 406/420 I.P.C against the petitioner
in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-Ist Faizabad on 25.02.2014 with
allegations
that
complainant
was
a
company registered under the provisions of
Indian Companies Act 1956, which was
carrying out the business of manufacturing
and sales of Poultry Feed through their unit
situated at Plot No. B-1 to B-6 Industrial
Area Site No.-1 Post-Haripur Jalalabad,
Lucknow Road, P.S-Cantt Distt.-Faizabad
(Now Ayodhya). It was further alleged that
the present petitioner Mangal Prasad Singh
purchased the Poultry Feed with the
complainant company as per terms settled
between the parties and handed over a
cheque bearing number "394990" dated
15.12.2013 amounting to Rs. 300000/-
drawn on State Bank of India Babatpur,
Varanasi but when the same was presented
for clearing by the complainant company in
HDFC Bank Ltd. Faizabad, then the same
was dishonoured by State Bank of India,
Branch-Babatpur Varanasi on the ground of
insufficient fund. It was also alleged that
despite giving notice on 13.01.2014, the
accused/petitioner failed to make payment
of due amount, thereafter, the complainant
filed the complaint U/S 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act read with Section 406/420
I.P.C in the Trial Court on 25.02.2014.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further
submitted
that
the
petitioner
contested the matter before the Trial Court
and also filed his written submission on
15.02.2017 in the Trial Court stating
therein the true and full facts it was also
averred that initially, a Saving Bank
account pertaining to the petitioner State
Bank of India, Branch-Babatpur Varanasi in
respect of which a cheque was issued by
the petitioner to the present opp. party no. 2
towards guarantee/security money but
when the said account was closed and the
petitioner opened new account in State
Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Babatpur
Varanasi,
then
the
petitioner
made
payments to the present opp. party no. 2
from his new account on 14.05.2013 of Rs.
200028/-, on 03.06.2013 of Rs. 40000/-, on
17.07.2013 of Rs. 25000/-, on 19.08.2013
of Rs. 30000/-, on 27.09.2013 of Rs.
25000/-, on 11.11.2013 of Rs. 25000/- on
24.10.2014 of Rs. 35000/-, on 21.04.2014
of Rs. 20000/- & on 03.07.2014 of Rs.
20000/- but the opp. party no. 2 despite
having full knowledge of closure of the
first account, submitted the previous
cheque which was given by the petitioner
towards
guarantee/security
money.
Although, the petitioner had issued a
cheque towards guarantee/security money
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from his new account to opp. party no.2
and as such there was no malafide intention
on the part of the petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the Trial Court i.e.
First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
Ayodhya without considering the legal and
factual aspects of the matter, illegally and
erroneously vide impugned judgment and
order dated 16.02.2024 convicted the
petitioner and awarded sentence of three
months simple imprisonment U/S 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and also
imposed fine of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The Trial
Court further provided that out of total fine
an amount of Rs. 390000/- shall be given to
the complainant/present opp. party no. 2
U/S 357 of Cr.P.C as damages and rest of
the amount of fine of Rs. 10000/- shall be
deposited in Court and in case of non
deposition of amount of fine the accused
shall
serve
one
month
further
imprisonment.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that against the order of
conviction passed by the Trial Court
remedy of filing Statutory Appeal is
provided to the accused person U/S 374
Cr.P.C and as such the petitioner/accused
preferred Statutory Appeal on 29.02.2024
in the Court of District & Sessions Judge
Faizabad. It is further stated that along with
the
Memo
of
Appeal
the
petitioner/appellant moved two applications
one
for
granting
bail
to
the
appellant/accused during pendency of the
appeal and other for staying the operation
of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the
Trial Court.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that as per Section 148(1)
of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881,
which has been inserted in the Act through
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act,
2018 (Act No 20 of 2018) it has been
provided that notwithstanding anything
contained
in
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal
by the drawer against conviction U/S 138,
the Appellate
Court
may
order
the
Appellant to deposit such sum which may
shall be a minimum of twenty percent of
the fine or compensation awarded by the
Trial Court, provided that the amount
payable under this sub-section shall be in
addition to any interim compensation paid
by the appellant U/S 143A.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that in Section 148(2) it
has also been provided that the amount
referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
deposited within sixty days from the date of
the order, or within such period not
exceeding thirty days as may be directed by
the Court on sufficient cause being shown
by the appellant.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further
submitted
that
the
Learned
Appellate Court although vide order dated
29.02.2024 has been pleased to admit the
appeal and also to allow the Bail
Application but by the same order despite
admitting the appeal erroneously decline to
stay the operation of the impugned order
dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Trial Court
and thereby, rejected the Stay Application
(Paper No. 5B) and further directed the
appellant to deposit the amount of fine
imposed by the Trial Court within a period
of 10 days from the date of the order and
also provided that in case non-deposition of
fine by the appellant, the bail order shall
stand automatically cancelled.
4 All. Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
807

11. Learned Counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the Appellate Court
while passing the impugned order dated
29.02.2024 by which it has declined to stay
the operation of the order passed by the
Trial Court, has failed to consider the
Statutory Provisions as enshrined U/S
148(1) & 148 (2) of The Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881, which resulted in
miscarriage of justice.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the impugned order
dated 29.02.2024 by which the Appellate
Court has provided that in case of failure of
deposition of fine by the appellant, the Bail
Order shall stand automatically cancelled is
punitive in nature and is against the settled
proposition of law as it is settled
propositions of law, that if any appeal is
presented by the appellant and the same is
admitted by the Appellate Court, in that
event it is also obligatory for the Appellate
Court to stay the operation of the impugned
order under appeal during pendency of the
appeal, thus, if any order is challenged and
the appeal is pending, one cannot permit a
swinging pendulum continuously taking
place during pendency of the appeal. He
further submitted that by non staying the
operation of the impugned order by the
Appellate Court, serious far reaching Civil
Consequences may arise and the same may
be detrimental to the interest of the
appellant/petitioner, for which there is no
justification.

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the impugned order
dated 29.02.2024 to the extent by which the
Appellate Court has declined to grant stay
order has caused serious prejudice to the
petitioner and as such the necessity of filing
the
present
petition
invoking
the
Supervisory Jurisdiction conferred under
Article 227 of The Constitution of India has
arisen, thus, he submitted that it is
necessary and expedient in the interest of
justice that the operation of the impugned
order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the
Appellate Court as well as the recovery of
fine to the tune of Rs. 400000/- as imposed
by the Trial Court may kindly be stayed
during pendency of the present petition in
the Hon'ble Court, otherwise the petitioner
would suffer an irreparable loss.

14. Learned A.G.A-I for the Stateopposite party No.1 did not oppose the
contentions
made
on behalf
of
the
petitioner as learned Counsel for the
petitioner has rightly pointed out illegality
in the impugned order and has supported
his contentions with the laws laid down by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India and
submits that the Appellate Court has failed
to consider the Statutory Provisions as
enshrined U/S 148(1) & 148 (2) of The
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which
resulted in miscarriage of justice.

15. I have heard learned Counsel for
the parties and perused the material placed
on record.

16. Before entering into the merits of
the case, it would be relevant to discuss
Section 148 of The Negotiable Instruments
Act 1881, which has been inserted in the
Act
through
Negotiable
Instruments
(Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act No 20 of
2018) to provide, inter alia, speedy disposal
of cases relating to dishonour of cheques so
as to see that due to delay tactics by
unscrupulous
drawers
of
dishonoured
cheques due to easy filing of appeals and
obtaining stay in proceedings, injustice
caused to payee of dishonoured cheque
who has spent considerable time and
resource in court proceedings to realise
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
value of cheque, thus, having observed that
such delay has compromised sanctity of
cheque transaction, Parliament thought it fit
to
amend
Section
148
Purposive
interpretation of Section 148 would be in
furtherance of Objects and Reasons of
amendment of Section 148 and also Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. Section 148 of The Negotiable
Instruments Act 1881, which has been
inserted in the Act through Negotiable
Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 (Act
No 20 of 2018) is reproduced hereunder:-

"Section-148 Power of Appellate
Court to order payment pending appeal
against conviction

(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, in an appeal by the
drawer against conviction under section
138, the Appellate Court may order the
appellant to deposit such sum which shall
be a minimum of twenty percent of the fine
or compensation awarded by the trial
Court:

Provided that the amount payable
under this sub-section shall be in addition
to any interim compensation paid by the
appellant under section 143A.

(2)The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall be deposited 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
appellant.

(3)The
Appellate
Court
may
direct the release of the amount deposited
by the appellant to the complainant at any
time during the pendency of the appeal:

Provided that if the appellant is
acquitted, the Court shall direct the
complainant to repay to the appellant the
amount so released, 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."

17. As per Section 148(1) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which
has been inserted in the Act through
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act,
2018 (Act No.20 of 2018) it has been
provided that notwithstanding anything
contained
in
the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), in an appeal
by the drawer against conviction U/S 138,
the Appellate
Court
may
order
the
Appellant to deposit such sum which may
shall be a minimum of twenty percent of
the fine or compensation awarded by the
Trial Court, provided that the amount
payable under this sub-section shall be in
addition to any interim compensation paid
by the appellant U/S 143A.

18. As per Section 148(2) it has also
been provided that the amount referred to
in Sub-section (1) shall be deposited within
sixty days from the date of the order, or
within such period not exceeding thirty
days as may be directed by the Court on
sufficient cause being shown by the
appellant.

19. In the instant case, the Appellate
court although vide order dated 29.02.2024
had admitted the appeal and also allowed
the Bail Application moved by the
appellant/petitioner but by the same order
despite admitting the appeal preferred by
4 All. Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
809
the appellant/petitioner had erroneously
rejected the stay and operation of the
impugned order dated 16.02.2024 passed
by the trial court and thereby, rejected the
stay application (Paper No.5B) and further
directed him to deposite amount of fine
imposed by the trial court within a period
of ten days' from the date of the order and
also provided that in case of non-deposition
of fine by the appellant/petitioner, the order
of granting bail to the appellant/petitioner
shall stand automatically cancelled, thus,
the appellate court while passing the
impugned order dated 29.02.2024 by which
it has rejected to stay the operation of the
order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the trial
court has failed to consider the Statutory
Provisions as enshrined under Section
148(1) and 148(2) of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 as discussed above,
which resulted in miscarriage of justice.

20. It is further observed here that the
impugned order dated 29.02.2024 passed
by the Appellate Court, by which it was
provided that in case of failure of
deposition
of
fine
by
the
appellant/petitioner, the Bail Order shall
stand automatically cancelled appears to be
punitive in nature and is against the settled
proposition of law as it is a settled
proposition of law, that if any appeal is
presented by the appellant and the same is
admitted by the Appellate Court, in that
event, it is also obligatory for the Appellate
Court to grant interim relief in the appeal
during the pendency of the appeal, thus,
any order challenged in the appeal and the
said appeal was admitted and pending,
thus, one cannot permit a swinging
pendulum to continue swinging during the
pendency of the appeal.

21. The issue involved in this petition
has broadly been dealt by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in the case of
Surinder Singh Deswal Alias Colonel S.S.
Deswal and Others vs. Virender Gandhi
reported in (2019) SCC 341 wherein the
Apex Court has been pleased to observe in
paragraph No.8, which is reproduced
hereinunder:-

"8. Now so far as the submission
on behalf of the appellants that even
considering the language used in Section
148 of the NI Act as amended, the appellate
court "may" order the appellant to deposit
such sum which shall be a minimum of 20%
of the fine or compensation awarded by the
trial court and the word used is not "shall"
and therefore the discretion is vested with
the first appellate court to direct the
appellant-accused to deposit such sum and
the appellate court has construed it as
mandatory, which according to the learned
Senior Advocate for the appellants would
be contrary to the provisions of Section 148
of the NI Act as amended is concerned,
considering the amended Section 148 of the
NI Act as a whole to be read with the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
amending Section 148 of the NI Act, though
it is true that in the amended Section 148 of
the NI Act, the word used is "may", it is
generally to be construed as a "rule" or
"shall" and not to direct to deposit by the
appellate court is an exception for which
special reasons are to be assigned.
Therefore amended Section 148 of the NI
Act confers power upon the appellate court
to pass an order pending appeal to direct
the appellant-accused to deposit the sum
which shall not be less than 20% of the fine
or compensation either on an application
filed by the original complainant or even
on the application filed by the appellantaccused under Section 389 CrPC to
suspend the sentence. The aforesaid is
required to be construed considering the
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fact that as per the amended Section 148 of
the NI Act, a minimum of 20% of the fine or
compensation awarded by the trial court is
directed to be deposited and that such
amount is to be deposited within a period
of 60 days from the date of the order, or
within such further period not exceeding
30 days as may be directed by the
appellate court for sufficient cause shown
by the appellant. Therefore, if amended
Section 148 of the NI Act is purposively
interpreted in such a manner it would
serve the Objects and Reasons of not only
amendment in Section 148 of the NI Act,
but also Section 138 of the NI Act. The
Negotiable Instruments Act has been
amended from time to time so as to
provide, inter alia, speedy disposal of
cases relating to the offence of the
dishonour of cheques. So as to see that
due to delay tactics by the unscrupulous
drawers of the dishonoured cheques due to
easy filing of the appeals and obtaining
stay in the proceedings, an injustice was
caused to the payee of a dishonoured
cheque who has to spend considerable
time
and
resources
in
the
court
proceedings to realise the value of the
cheque and having observed that such
delay has compromised the sanctity of the
cheque
transactions,
Parliament
has
thought it fit to amend Section 148 of the
NI Act. Therefore, such a purposive
interpretation would be in furtherance of
the Objects and Reasons of the amendment
in Section 148 of the NI Act and also
Section 138 of the NI Act."

22. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jamboo Bhandari vs.
Madhya
Pradesh
State
Industrial
Development Corporation Limited and
Others reported in (2023) 10 SCC 446 has
been pleased to observe in paragraph
No.12, which is reproduced hereinunder:-

"12. In these circumstances, we
set aside the impugned orders of the High
Court and restore the revision petitions
filed by the appellants before the High
Court. We direct the parties to appear
before the roster Bench of the High Court
on 9-10-2023 in the morning to enable the
High Court to fix a date for hearing of the
revision petitions. As the contesting parties
are before the Court, it will not be
necessary for the High Court to issue a
notice of the date fixed for hearing. The
High Court, after hearing the parties, will
consider whether 20% of the amount is
already deposited or not. If the Court
comes to the conclusion that 20% of the
amount is not deposited, the Court will reexamine the revision petitions in the light of
what we have observed in this judgment.
Till the disposal of the restored revision
petitions, the interim order passed by this
Court ordering suspension of sentence will
continue to operate."

23. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the facts and circumstances, as narrated
above and from the perusal of the record,
the impugned order dated 29.02.2024
passed by Sessions Judge Faizabad (now
Ayodhya) in Criminal Appeal No.12 of
2024; Mangla Prasad Singh vs. Shanti
Roller Mills Ltd to the extent by which the
learned Appellate Court despite admitting
the appeal has declined to stay the
operation of the impugned order therein
dated 16.02.2024 passed by the trial court
and
thereby
has
rejected
the
stay
application (Paper No.5-B), is against the
spirit and directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.

24. Keeping in view the discussions
made above and the laws settled by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court of India referred above,
4 All. Layak Singh Vs. Smt. Ekta Kumari
811
this Court finds that the Appellate Court
has erred in law while rejecting the stay
application of the appellant/petitioner, by
which
it
was
prayed
by
the
appellant/petitioner to stay the fine of
Rs.4,00,000/- imposed by the trial court
while convicting him under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 till
the disposal of the appeal preferred by the
appellant/petitioner before the Appellate
Court.
Thus,
this
Court
deems
it
appropriate to dispose of this petition with
modification of the impugned order dated
29.02.2024 to the extent that the petitioner
is directed to deposit 20% of the fine
imposed upon him by the trial court within
sixty days' from the date of delivery of this
judgment by this Court and the bail already
granted by the Appellate Court shall
continue till the disposal of the appeal
pending before the Appellate Court i.e.
Sessions Judge Faizabad (now Ayodhya)
bearing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2024
((Mangla Prasad Singh Vs. Shanti Roller
Mills Ltd.).

25. It is further directed that the
petitioner will be on bail as granted by the
Appellate
Court
vide
order
dated
29.02.2024 with same terms and conditions
as imposed by the Appellate Court while
granting him bail.

26. It is hereby made clear that if 20%
of the fine imposed is not deposited by the
petitioner within the period of sixty days
from the date of pronouncement of this
judgment by this Court, then the bail
already granted by the Appellate Court
concerned
shall
stand
automatically
cancelled.

27. With the above observations/
directions, the present petition is finally
disposed of.

28. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Appellate Court
concerned for its immediate compliance,
forthwith by the office of the Senior
Registrar of this Court.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 811
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 1607 of 2024 (Civil)

Layak Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Ekta Kumari ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Puneet Bhadauria

Counsel for the Respondent:

(A) Family Law - Waiver of Cooling Period
in Divorce by Mutual Consent - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B (2) -
Divorce by mutual consent - Irretrievable
breakdown of marriage - cooling period -
mutual consent divorce - discretionary
powers - Statutory period of six months
under Section 13-B (2) is not mandatory
but directory, and courts can exercise
discretion to waive this period if there's no
possibility
of
reconciliation
and
the
waiting period would only prolong the
parties' agony.(Para -15,18,22)

Petitioner (Layak Singh) and respondent (Ekta
Kumari) married on 29.06.2020 - separated
shortly after on 28.10.2020 - Multiple efforts for
reconciliation failed - Both parties mutually
agreed to divorce - petitioner agreeing to pay
₹6,00,000/- to respondent - joint petition for
divorce was filed under Section 13-B on
10.11.2023 - Application to waive cooling period
was rejected by Family Court - Family Court
held - only Supreme Court can waive the cooling