Chattisgarh High Court
Mohammad Adil Khan vs Sukhcharya Patre on 2 September, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:44648
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRR No. 824 of 2019
Mohammad Adil Khan S/o Mohammad Afzal Aged About 45 Years R/o Raja
Hotel Genesh Nagar, Chuchuhiyapara, P. S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur Tahsil And
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant
versus
Sukhcharya Patre, S/o. Kushwa Ram Ratre Aged About 33 Years R/o New
Loco Colony, Chuchuhiyapara, P. S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur Tahsil And District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
____________________________________________________________
For Applicant : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order On Board
02/09/2024
1. Applicant has filed this revision petition challenging the legality,
propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated
BALRAM
PRASAD
29.06.2019, passed in Criminal Appeal No.191/2018, by which learned
DEWANGAN
Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur has maintained
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2018,
passed in Complaint Case No. 13501/2015, whereby the Court of
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur convicted
applicant for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act, 1881 (In short 'the Act of 1881') and sentenced him to
undergo S.I. for 6 months and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-
as per Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C. with default stipulation.
2. During pendency of this revision petition, both petitioner and
respondent have appeared through their learned counsel and submits
that parties have entered into settlement and pursuant there to,
settlement deed was also executed on 05.08.2025 and amount of
Rs.2.00 Lakhs, which is the compensation imposed upon applicant
has been paid to respondent/non-applicant on same day. They also
submits that after execution of settlement deed they have filed an
application under Section 147 of the Act of 1881 seeking permission of
this Court to compound the offence.
3. Complainant/respondent is present before this Court and submitted
that he has received Rs.2.00 Lakhs as mentioned in the settlement
deed.
4. Provisions U/s. 147 of the Act of 1881 deals with offences to be
compoundable and reads as under :-
"147. Offences to be compoundable. --
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence
punishable under this Act shall be compoundable."
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v.
Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 while dealing with the issue has
observed as under :-
"7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to
facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The
provision is necessary as in many transactions cheques
were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors.
Dishonour of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and
inconvenience to the payee and credibility of business
transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also
noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily
related to a civil wrong and the 2002 Amendment specifically
made it compoundable. ......"
18.2. The object of the provision being primarily
compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the
object of enforcing the compensatory element,
compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged
but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate
compensation as may be found acceptable to the
parties or the court.
18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both
parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in
the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the
complainant has been duly compensated, can in its
discretion close the proceedings and discharge the
accused."
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court further in case of P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs.
Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 258,
has observed as under :-
"50. By an Amendment Act of 2002, various other
sections were added to this Chapter. Thus, under
Section 143, it is lawful for a Magistrate to pass a
sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year and a fine exceeding INR 5,000/- summarily. This
provision is again an important pointer to the fact that
the payment of compensation is at the heart of the
provision in that a fine exceeding INR 5000/-, the sky
being the limit, can be imposed by way of a summary
trial which, after application of Section 357 of the CrPC,
results in compensating the victim up to twice the
amount of the bounced cheque. Under Section 144, the
mode of service of summons is done as in civil cases,
eschewing the mode contained in Sections 62 to 64 of
the CrPC. Likewise, under Section 145, evidence is to
be given by the complainant on affidavit, as it is given in
civil proceedings, notwithstanding anything contained in
the CrPC. Most importantly, by Section 147, offences
under this Act are compoundable without any
intervention of the court, as is required by Section
320(2) of the CrPC."
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.V. Seshaiah Vs. State of
Telangana & Anr., reported in (2023) 18 SCC 512, reiterating the
decision in case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited
(supra) has held as under :-
"8. In such a circumstance, the Appellants cannot be
convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the
courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a
compounding of the offence.
9. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private
Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta, reported in (2018) 1
SCC 560, this court held that the nature of offence
under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a
civil wrong and has been specifically made a
compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment has been extracted herein:
"This Court has noted that the object of the statute
was to facilitate smooth functioning of business
transactions. The provision is necessary as in many
transactions' cheques were issued merely as a
device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque
causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience
to the payee and credibility of business transactions
suffers a set back. At the same time, it was also
noted that nature of offence under Section 138
primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002
amendment specifically made it compoundable."
11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into
an agreement and compounding the offence to save
themselves from the process of litigation. When such a
step has been taken by the parties, and the law very
clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then
cannot override such compounding and impose its will."
8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for respective parties,
the provisions of the Act of 1881 and principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, application
filed by the parties U/s. 147 of the Act of 1881 is allowed. The parties
are permitted to compound the offence for which applicant has been
convicted in the present case. Consequently, the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the Appellate Court as well as
by Trial Court are set-aside and applicant is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
