Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinod vs Akram on 21 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Rusia
- : 1 :-
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(S.B.: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)
Criminal Revision No.3535/2021
Applicant:- Vinod, S/o-Sureshchandra Shrivastava,
Age-37 years, Occupation-Business,
R/o-Thakur Mohalla, Gram Bhaag, Tehsil-Kukshi,
District-Dhar (M.P.)
Versus
Respondent no:1:- Akram S/o-Nizam Khan,
Age-40 years, Occupation-Mechanic
R/o-Rajendra Nagar, Barwani,
District-Barwani (M.P.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• Shri Ratnesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.
• Ms.Nivedita Sharma, learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
Indore, Date:21.01.2022:
This present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 26.09.2019
passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, District-
Barwani (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.07/2019 confirming the Judgment
dated 28.12.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Barwani in SCNIA No.219/2016 whereby applicant has been convicted
under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo
six months R.I. with fine of Rs.1,31,400/- including cheque amount of
Rs.80,000/-.
2. After conviction by both the courts now the applicant and the
respondent/complainant have entered into compromise.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire amount
involved in the cheque has been paid and joint application of compromise
is filed as I.A. No.30210/2021.
4. Ms. Nivedita Sharma, learned counsel for the
respondent/complainant submits that contentions of applicant is correct as
the compromise has been arrived between the parties and complainant has
- : 2 :-
received the entire amount with full satisfaction .
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this applicant had
already deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- before the trial Court after
passing of judgment dated 28.12.2010.
6. There is no impediment in accepting the compromise between the
parties at this stage in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of
India in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in
2010 (5) SCC 663 in which guidelines are there to be followed in the
matter of compromise between accused and the complainant in the
matters of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The guidelines are
reproduced below:-
(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.
In view of the guideline I(c) since the application for compounding
is filed before this High Court in a revisional stage hence the same is
liable to be allowed on a condition to deposit 15% of the cheque amount
by way of cost with the Legal Services Authority, Barwani. Since
Rs.15,000/- is already lying with the trial court the same amount be paid
to the district Legal Services Authority, Barwani by way of cost for which
- : 3 :-
parties have no objection .
7. In view of the above, conviction of order dated 26.09.2019 passed
by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, District-Barwani (M.P.)
in Criminal Appeal No.07/2019 and order and Judgment dated 28.12.2008
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barwani in SCNIA
No.219/2016 is set aside.
8. Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not
surrendered, hence an arrest warrant has issued. The arrest warrant of
arrest is liable to be cancelled on an application filed under section 70(2)
of the Cr.P.C for which the applicant/ accused is liable to appear with an
application for cancellation of warrant .
9. In normal circumstances the court would direct the applicant to
surrender before pursuing this revision. Since Corona third wave is in
peak, therefore it would not be safe to send the applicant in jail specially
when a compromises has been accepted by this court . Hence this revision
is being entertained.
10. Let the applicant surrender and apply for cancellation of the bail
bond before the competent court .
Revision is allowed and finally disposed of .
( VIVEK RUSIA )
JUDGE
Ajit
AJIT Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
KAMALASAN
2.5.4.20=156c9cedca1b74d671db9f220a5e3ed6cba241effad
892107d95ef0a1afc55b4,
pseudonym=CFDFD9C36711CA738F527A5D61A1EE901C09
EF29,
serialNumber=7F0BEE2D78BD57DA058F3247441C87E7E081
AN
7FB61F5E2ABCAEE63CAAA7B3B9FF, cn=AJIT
KAMALASANAN
Date: 2022.01.22 13:24:51 +05'30'
