(1) 14.wp.540.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.540 OF 2026 Satish s/o Dhirajlal Doshi Vs. The Collector, Nagpur and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. V. V. Bharadwaj, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. S. S. Jachak, APP for State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 05/10/2026 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to immediate execute the warrants for recovery of fine dated 24.01.2025 in SCC Nos.10450/2019, 10448/2019, 10447/2019 and 10445/2019, by creating charge over the properties of the accused persons mentioned in the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submitted that the petitioner being a businessman and Proprietor of M/s Swetal Steels filed four separate complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “N.I.Act”), against M/s Shri Appaswami Infrastructure and its partners. In these proceedings, the learned 10th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur passed orders on 22.10.2024 directing the accused to pay 20% of interim compensation under Section 143A of the N.I. Act. Upon the accused’s failure 2026:BHC-NAG:13584-DB (2) 14.wp.540.2026 to deposit the said amounts, the trial Court issued warrants for recovery of fine under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 24.01.2025, authorizing the respondent No.1 to realize the amounts as arrears of land revenue. Despite the petitioner providing a list of accused immovable properties, the grievance of the petitioner was that the respondent have failed to perform their statutory duties and initiate recovery or record a charge on the property cards. Taking advantage of the inaction on the part of the respondent, the accused persons sold the immovable properties mentioned in the list and, therefore, the petitioner approached to this Court. 3. In response to the notice, learned AGP filed on record the documents, which shows that as far as the creation of the charge on the property of the accused person is concerned, which is complied with. The property card is placed on record to show the said compliance. It further reveals that the Naib Tahsildar has also issued the notice to the accused persons i.e. Sunil Shridhar Chaudhary and Vivek Shridhar Chaudhary partners of Shri Appaswami Infrastructure for depositing the compensation amount of Rs.21 Lakhs. In response to the notice, accused persons have already obtained time from the authority to deposit the said amount. 4. According to Section 421 of the Code, fine could be recovered either by warrant of attachment or sale of movable property belonging to the offender or by issuance of warrant to the Collector authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable as immovable property or both of the defaulter. It is clear that in case an accused, against whom an order to pay interim compensation under (3) 14.wp.540.2026 Section 143A of the Act is passed, fails or is unable to pay the amount of interim compensation, the process under Section 421 can be taken resort to which may inter alia result in coercive action of recovery of the amount of interim compensation as if the amount represented the arrears of land revenue. The extent and rigor of the procedure prescribed for such recovery may vary from State to State but invariably, such procedure may visit the person concerned with coercive methods. 5. In view of the above provision laid down in the statutory book of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent i.e. Collector through Tahsildar has already taken steps and charge is already created, notice for recovery of amount is already issued, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed by the authorities. 6 However, considering the further action is concerned, we direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to complete further proceedings within a period of six months. 7. With this direction, the petition is disposed of. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/10/2026 20:11:46