Court Waives Cost Condition, Orders Immediate Release of Accused, Upholding Liberty Over Financial Constraints
In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has ordered the release of Santosh Dangi, who was incarcerated due to financial incapacity to deposit costs after a settled cheque bounce case. The court, presided over by Mr. Farjand Ali, J., waived the condition imposed earlier to deposit 15% of the cheque amount, emphasizing the principle that liberty cannot be contingent upon financial capacity.
The case originated from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where Santosh Dangi was found guilty by the Special Judicial Magistrate in Udaipur. However, during the pendency of his revision petition, the parties amicably settled their dispute. Despite the settlement, Dangi was unable to comply with the condition to deposit the costs as per the guidelines established in the Supreme Court case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., leading to his arrest.
The court acknowledged that the costs in such cases are meant to be regulatory and not punitive. It highlighted that insisting on such payments despite financial incapacity is disproportionate and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty. The court noted that the complainant had accepted the settlement, and there was no subsisting grievance, making the continued incarceration of Dangi unjust.
Drawing from precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Khandelwal v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that the guidelines for costs are not mandatory and should consider the accused's financial capacity. The Rajasthan High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in protecting individual freedoms against economic constraints and preventing the misuse of judicial processes.
The court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. As a result, the arrest warrant issued against Dangi was quashed, and he was ordered to be released immediately, provided he was not required in any other case.
Bottom Line:
Negotiable Instruments Act - In cases where the dispute under Section 138 stands settled, continued incarceration of the accused solely due to financial incapacity to deposit costs for compounding is disproportionate and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138, Constitution of India Article 21, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528.
Santosh Dangi v. Firm M/s Royal Sanitary, (Rajasthan) : Law Finder Doc id # 2875162
