Gauhati High Court
Alfarid Hussain vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 31 July, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010152182025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./290/2025
ALFARID HUSSAIN
SON OF ANWAR HUSSAIN
RESIDENT OF KUMARPARA CHARIALI, BHARALUMUKH, P.S.
BHARALUMUKH, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781009, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM
2:SRI PRANJUM KALITA
SON OF TARANI CHARAN KALITA
RESIDENT OF SONAIGHULI
SAWKUCHI
P.S. DISPUR
GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K JAIN, MR. H GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
31.07.2025
Heard Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam.
Page No.# 2/4
2. In this criminal revision petition, the revision petitioner has laid challenge to a Judgment
dated 07.03.2024 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup [M],
Guwahati ['the Trial Court'] in complaint case, C.R. Case no. 1107 C/2015, which has been
affirmed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge [FTC] no. 3, Kamrup [M], Guwahati
['the Appellate Court'] in Criminal Appeal no. 39/2024 by its Judgment dated 29.05.2025.
3. The complaint case was instituted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument [N.I.] Act. The learned Trial Court finding the accused, that is, the revision petitioner
guilty of the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, has sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.
4,35,000/- to the complainant and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
months. The Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court
has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
4. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that there was a
compromise agreement between the complainant and the revision petitioner during the pendency
of the complaint case and as part of said compromise, the revision petitioner had paid an amount
of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. It is contended that in view of the compromise agreement
arrived at between the complainant and the revision petitioner during the pendency of the
proceedings of the complaint case, the further proceedings could not have been continued as the
settlement agreement had subsumed the original complaint. In support of his submission, Mr. Jain
has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimplex Private Limited vs. Manoj
Goel, [2022] 11 SCC 705.
5. Upon perusal of the decision in Gimplex [supra], this Court is of the prima facie view that
there is no similarity in the factual matrix of the said case with the case of the revision petitioner.
In Gimplex [supra], the original prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act was instituted upon
first complaint, resulted in settlement. The accused thereafter issued cheques to comply with
such settlement but the said cheques also got dishonoured. Thereafter, a second complaint was
filed with regard to dishonour of the settlement cheques. Resultantly, there were two set of
complaints under Section 138 of N.I. Act based on the dishonour of the first set of cheques and
the second set of cheques respectively. It was in that background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
Page No.# 3/4
observed that non-compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement or dishonour of
cheques issued subsequent to it, gave rise to a fresh cause of action attracting liability under
Section 138 of N.I. Act and other remedies under civil and criminal law. It has also been observed
that once the compromise deed was agreed upon, the original complaint must be quashed and
parties must proceed with the remedies available in law under the settlement agreement.
6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Demand Notice
was issued on 30.03.2015 and the complaint was filed on 30.04.2015. In the meantime, 15 days
notice period from the date of service of notice to institute the complaint did not expire.
7. The complainant who deposed as P.W.1, had categorically asserted in his testimony that
the Notice was served on 10.04.2015. On perusal, it appears prima facie that there was no cross-
examination of the complainant by the defence on that point. If the Notice is accepted to be
served on 10.04.2015 then the complaint filed on 30.04.2015 would definitely be after 15 days
notice period. Be that as it may.
8. The matter would require consideration.
9. Issue notice, returnable in 6 [six] weeks.
10. The case records of C.R. Case no. 1107 C/2015 and Criminal Appeal no. 39/2024 be called
for.
11. As Mr. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has appeared and accepted notice on
behalf of the respondent no. 1, issuance of formal notice to the respondent no. 1 is dispensed
with. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish an extra copy of the criminal revision
petition along with the annexures, to Mr. Goswami within 3 [three] working days from today.
12. The revision petitioner shall take steps for service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 by
registered post with A/D as well as by usual process.
13. Having regard to the findings recorded in Paragraph 34 of the Judgment of the learned
Page No.# 4/4
Trial Court and the provisions of Section 148A of the N.I. Act, it is ordered that subject to deposit
of 50% of the remaining principal amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, that is, Rs. 1,50,000/- by the
revision petitioner within a period of sixty days from today before the Registry of this Court, the
execution of the remaining part of the sentence passed against the revision petitioner shall
remain suspended till disposal of this criminal revision petition. Further, the revision petitioner is
allowed to remain on previous bail.
14. The revision petitioner shall place before this Court a due receipt regarding compliance
after expiry of 60th day from today.
15. List the case after 6 [six] weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
