Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonama Prajapati @ Sonelal Prajapati vs Ramayan Prasad Pandey on 27 February, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 5970 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SONAMA PRAJAPATI @ SONELAL PRAJAPATI S/O SHRI
BHULAU PRAJAPATI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE HATI DISTRICT
SATNA PRESETNLY R/O VILLAGE AND POST
MAHADEVA WARD NO 30 POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUBENDRA SINGH PARIHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMAYAN PRASAD PANDEY S/O SHRI SHOBHNATH
PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O VILLAGE
DADHIYA TOLA POLICE STATION NAGOD DISTRICT
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI K.K. VERMA - ADVOCATE)
T h is revision coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 13.8.2021 passed by VI Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2020 whereby the applicant has been convicted
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to R.I. for
1 year and compensation of Rs.6,46,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C.
2. The counsel for the applicant contends that during the pendency of the
instant criminal revision, good sense prevailed over the parties and parties have
entered into an amicable settlement. It is further submitted that in terms of the
order dated 7.2.2024 passed by this Court, the parties appeared before the
Registrar Judicial II for verification of their compromise where the statements of
the parties have been recorded. Therefore, it is submitted that in view of the
compromise entered into between the parties, the applicant be acquitted from
the aforesaid charge.
3. Heard the submission advanced by the counsel for the applicant and
perused the report dated 20.2.2024 submitted by Registrar Judicial II. A perusal
of the report dated 120.2.2024 reflects that the complainant has stated that he
has entered into compromise voluntarily without any force, compulsion, duress,
undue influence, inducement or threat with the present applicant and he has
received an amount of Rs.4,46,000/- towards full and final settlement of their
dispute.
4. In view of the decision in the cases of Damodardas S. Prabhu v.
Sayed Babulal H - (2010) 5 SCC 663 and Madhya Pradesh State Legal
Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain and Others - (2014) 10 SCC, 690
the applicant is directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount as compounding
fee with the M.P. State Legal Services Authority in connection with the
compromise, within a period of Twenty Days from today.
5. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, subject
to depositing the compounding fee as directed above, this compounding of
offence is allowed, it would have effect of acquittal under Section 320 (8) of
the Cr.P.C. and the applicant stands acquitted of the offence under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the compounding. The applicant
is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.
6. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vivek
