Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankarlal vs M.P. Of Indore Sahkari Sakh ... on 16 October, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3156 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
SHANKARLAL S/O MANNULAL VERMA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE
R/O. NANDANAGAR JANTA QUARTER
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI RASHMENDRA SURYAVANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
M.P. OF INDORE SAHKARI SAKH SANSTHA MARYADIT
INDORE
THR. SHRI DEEPAK MALORIYA PRESIDENT
305, BLUE DIAMOND APARTMENT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. SONU CHOURASIYA - ADVOCATE)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. This criminal revision has been filed against judgment dated 24.06.2019
passed by Learned Additional Sessions & Special Judge (Electricity Act),
District Indore in Criminal Appeal No.58/2019 whereby learned Sessions Court
affirmed the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
District-Indore in Criminal Case No.15981/2008, wherein the applicant has
been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
sentenced him to undergo 02 months rigorous imprisonment and compensation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 19:08:40
of Rs.56,206/- with default stipulations.
2. Present revision is filed along with a compromise deed and according
to which both the parties have entered into with their free will and there is no
undue influence, pressure, force, duress or coercion over the parties and the
entire amount has been duly received by the complainant /respondent as per
their settlement. It is further submitted that the applicant has suffered 2 months
in jail. Hence, prayed that the petitioner be acquitted from the charge under
Sec tio n 1 3 8 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the
compromise filed on behalf of the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the dispute has been
settled amicably and he has no objection if petitioner is acquitted from the
charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He fairly
admitted that the complainant has received amount of compensation i.e.
Rs.56448/- as per the compromise.
4. Since the parties are entering into compromise at the stage of revision,
therefore, law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu
Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 will be applicable in this
case. Paragraph No.21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"21. 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:-
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 19:08:40
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
Criminal Revision No.3198/2021 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."
5. Further in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of the aforesaid judgment, learned
Apex Court has held as under:
24. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial
endorsement of the above quoted guidelines could be
seen as an act of judicial law-making and therefore an
intrusion into the legislative domain. It must be kept in
mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any
guidance on how to proceed with the compounding of
offences under the Act. We have already explained that
the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the CrPC
cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the
legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement
of some suggestions which have been designed to
discourage litigants from unduly delaying the composition
of the offence in cases involving Section 138 of the Act.
25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to
encourage compounding at an early stage of litigation. In
the status quo, valuable time of the Court is spent on the
trial of these cases and the parties are not liable to pay any
Court fee since the proceedings are governed by the
Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of
the offence is largely confined to the private parties. Even
though the imposition of costs by the competent court is a
matter of discretion, the scale of costs has been suggested
in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court can
of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific
facts and circumstances of a case, while recording
reasons in writing for such variance. Bona fide litigants
should of course contest the proceedings to their logical
end.
26. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 19:08:40
complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to
frame guidelines in relation to subject-matter where there
was a legislative vacuum.
6. In view of the aforesaid paragraphs, and considering the fact that the
parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into compromise
before this Court in the revision and decided to avoid further litigation, hence,
the applicant is liable to pay 02% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1,130/- by way
of cost to be deposited with the "State Legal Services Authority" Indore.
7. Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 02% of the cheque amount
with the "State Legal Services Authority" Indore, within a period of 15 days
from today, the applicant be acquitted and released from the jail thereon, if he is
in jail.
8. In case of failure to deposit of the said amount before the State Legal
Services Authority, the petitioner shall undergo the original sentence and
compensation as awarded by learned trial Court.
9. The complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount so deposited
before the Court below by the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, revision stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
sumathi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUMATHI
Signing time: 16-10-
2023 19:08:40
