[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Gaurav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 December, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:216451
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14270 of 2025
Gaurav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sanjiv Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 08.06.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD), Court No.6, Meerut, as well as the revisional order dated 14.10.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Meerut, in Revision No.263 of 2024 (Gaurav v. Guliani), arising out of Complaint Case No.9542 of 2016 (Guliani v. Gaurav), whereby the order of the learned Magistrate dated 08.06.2023 was affirmed.
3. Briefly stated, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the complainant/respondent no.2 in 2016. Upon presentation of the complaint, the petitioner was summoned. He later appeared pursuant to issuance of NBW and secured bail on in the year 2022. The petitioner moved an application seeking compounding of the offence, which came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner had not disclosed whether he was willing to pay the compounding amount along with the requisite interest on the cheque amount. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision, which was also dismissed by concurring with the findings of the trial court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the revision petition the petitioner had specifically stated, in paragraph-7, his readiness and willingness to pay the cost and interest for the purpose of compounding. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Another v. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 and Damodar Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 to contend that the courts below have failed to appreciate the underlying objectives of compounding under the NI Act and the mandate of law encouraging early settlement of cheque dishonour disputes. It is urged that both the courts below acted mechanically and ignored the petitioner's willingness to comply with the statutory requirements.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds merit in the contention that the petitioner's willingness to comply with the statutory framework governing compounding was not duly considered. The legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions emphasize liberal approach in matters of compounding under Section 138 NI Act, subject to payment of appropriate costs and compliance with prescribed guidelines. In view of the same, and in the interest of justice, the matter deserves reconsideration by the trial court.
7. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (JD), Meerut, for fresh consideration of the petitioner's application for compounding. The learned Magistrate is directed to: (a) reconsider the petitioner's application in light of his unequivocal willingness to pay the cost and interest in accordance with law; (b) pass a reasoned and speaking order within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; and (c) thereafter place the fresh order before the revisional court for appropriate consideration.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
December 2, 2025
Anil K. Sharma
