Allahabad High Court
Nirmal Kumar Shandilya vs State Of U.P. And Another on 21 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:208963
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5612 of 2025
Nirmal Kumar Shandilya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Arya Suman Pandey, Jitendra Sarin, Pawan Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 91
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned AGA for State and Sri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2-Neeraj Kumar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Nirmal Kumar Shandilya, the revisionist has filed an a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against Neeraj Kumar Singh, the opposite party No.2 for the cheques amounting to Rs.4,25,000/- and Rs.50,000/-. The total amount is Rs.4,75,000/-. The Additional Judge, Varanasi has decided the said complaint bearing No.1413 of 2019 (Nirmal Kumar Shandilya vs. Neeraj Kumar Singh) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, Police Station-Chetganj, District-Varanasi on 29.2.2024. Opposite party No.2 was convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act and he has been punished for six months' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,62,000/-.
3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 29.2.2024, Neeraj Kumar Singh/accused/opposite party No.2 has filed Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2024, which was decided by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi on the basis of the compounding and mediation proceedings on 26.8.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant has submitted that as per the mediation proceedings, the amount was settled for Rs.6,10,000/-. The main contention of learned counsel for the revisionist/complainant is that in the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2024, the learned Session Judge has decided the criminal appeal on the basis of mediation compromise and compoundable amount; whereas he relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663 that the appellant/accused would be entitled for the amount, which had been deposited by accused-appellant at the stage of admission of the appeal; an amount of 20 per cent, the accused would be entitled of 15 per cent of the said amount.
5. Now, the sole question after this entire discussion is if any compounding would be held at the appellate stage. The amount of the settlement either in the mediation proceedings or in any settlement proceeding would be as per the choice of the parties, but that would be subject to the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S.Prabhu (supra). It has held in paragraph-15 as under:
"15. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-
THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
Let it also be clarified that any costs imposed in accordance with these guidelines should be deposited with the Legal Services Authority operating at the level of the Court before which compounding takes place. For instance, in case of compounding during the pendency of proceedings before a Magistrate's Court or a Court of Sessions, such costs should be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority. Likewise, costs imposed in connection with composition before the High Court should be deposited with the State Legal Services Authority and those imposed in connection with composition before the Supreme Court should be deposited with the National Legal Services Authority."
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- as per the settlement in the mediation. He is not liable to pay fine as per the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu (supra). The amount of cost has to be paid by the accused at 15 per cent. The revisionist is the complainant.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2-Neeraj Kumar Singh/accused has submitted that he has settled in the mediation, therefore, he is liable to pay the amount, which is settled in the mediation. He is not liable to pay any payment as to costs. It is specifically mentioned over here that the accused-Neeraj Kumar Singh, i.e., opposite party No.2 is having the legal right and the compoundable offence as per the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said judgment is binding precedent in accordance with Article 141 of the Constitution of India to all the parties. As per paragraph-15 (c) of the aforesaid judgment passed in Damodar S.Prabhu (supra), similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the session court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
8. Hence, the accused-Neeraj Kumar Singh-opposite party No.2 is liable to pay the settlement amount, as per mediation-proceedings, 15 per cent as costs of the cheque-amount. The trial court shall look into the matter after providing the opportunity of hearing to both the parties that what is amount should be paid by Neeraj Kumar Singh-accused/opposite party No.2 to the revisionist-Nirmal Kumar Shandilya/complainant only in accordance with the findings given herein above. The adjustment, if any, is required, the learned trial court is fully competent to decide it, accordingly.
9. In view thereof, the impugned judgment dated 26.8.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi in Criminal Appeal No.76 of 2024 titled Neeraj Kumar Singh vs. State of UP and another, is modified. Both the parties shall appear before the concerned appellate court, Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Varanasi on 1.12.2025 for compliance.
10. With these observations and finding, the present criminal revision is finally disposed of, accordingly.
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
November 21, 2025
LN Tripathi
