Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Jain @ Bunty vs Firm Nathmal Tarachand Raanka ... on 4 October, 2021
Author: Sunita Yadav
1
Crr.No.2102/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Criminal Revision No.2102/2021
Vijay Jain @ Bunty
Vs.
Firm Nathmal Tarachand Raanka
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Vikas Mahawar, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Advocate
Counsel for the State : Mr. Brijendra Kushwaha, Panel
Lawyer
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sunita Yadav
ORDER
(Jabalpur, Dated : 04/10/2021)
Per: Sunita Yadav, J :
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31.08.2021
passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Aashta, District Sehore in
Criminal Appeal No.227/2019, whereby the judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed
in SCNIA No.94/2018 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Aashta, District
Sehore has been affirmed, the present revision petition has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that; on 16.02.2018, the
accused/revisionist purchased gold bangles costing Rs. 2,91,479/- on credit.
The accused/revisionist failed to make the payment, the complainant demanded
the amount and thus on 17.03.2018 the accused handed a cheque bearing
cheque No.00011 of RBL Bank, Mandoi Road Branch Aashta. The said
cheque was deposited by the complainant on his account on 22.03.2018 and
the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account
of revisionist. On 26.03.2018, a legal notice was sent through registered post
but the same was returned with a note of refusal. Thus, a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the complainant.
3. The learned Trial court convicted the revisionist under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act and convicted him to undergo SI for 1 year
and imposed compensation of Rs.5,80,000/-. Against the judgment of
conviction the revisionist preferred an appeal before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Aashta, However, the same has been rejected by
the impugned order dated 31.08.2021. Against the impugned order, this
revision petition has been filed.
4. During the pendency of this revision, a joint application bearing I.A.
No.17997/2021 under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has
been filed for compounding the offence and permitting the compromise
between the parties.
5. In the said application, it is stated that during the pendency of the
present case, the petitioner has arrived at a compromise and out of court
settlement, after which the respondent/complainant does not wish to
prosecute the application further. The applicant has duly deposited the entire
amount of compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- to the complainant and the
complainant has duly accepted and issued a receipt on 29.09.2021.
Consequently, it is prayed that the application be allowed and permit the
parties to compromise and acquit the accused/revisionist in the interest of
justice.
6. In support of the application under Section 147 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, the affidavit of Chandra Prakash Ranka, S/o Tarachandra Ji
Raanka and the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Jain have been filed.
7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that, in the light of
Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act conviction and sentence
recorded by the courts below should be set aside. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance in the case
of K.M. Ibrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed and Another, reported in (2010) 1
SCC 798 in which it is held as under :
14. It is true that the application under Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act was made by the parties after the
proceedings had been concluded before the appellate forum.
However, Section 147 of the aforesaid Act does not bar the parties
from compounding an offence under Section 138 even at the
appellate stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, we find no reason
to reject the application under Section 147 of the aforesaid Act
even in a proceeding under Article 136 of the Constitution.
15. Since the parties have settled their disputes, in keeping with
the spirit of Section 147 of the Act, we allow the parties to
compound the offence, set aside the judgment of the courts below
and acquit the appellant of the charges against him.
9. In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and keeping in view
that in the present case, the parties have settled their disputes, this Court
finds it appropriate to allow I.A. No.17997/2021 and permit the parties to
compound the offence.
10. In view of above, the judgment of the Courts below is set aside, the
offence for which the revisionist was tried and convicted has been
compounded and the accused/revisionist is acquitted of all the charges
levelled against him.
11. The revision is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(Sunita Yadav)
Judge
ss
Digitally signed by SWETA SAHU
Date: 2021.10.05 15:32:14 +05'30'
