Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gandharv Singh vs Dilip on 6 June, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 06TH OF JUNE, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No.2462 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GANDHARV SINGH S/O SIYARAM
SIKARWAR, AGE 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE KHARIKA, TEHSIL JOURA,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI B.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
DILIP S/O RAMGOPAL MITTAL, CASTE
VAISYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE WARD
NO.6, NEAR HOSPITAL VIJAYPUR,
DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
........RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SHEESHU YADAV - ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission/orders this day, the Court
passed the following:
ORDER
This present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 03.05.2024
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, District-
Sheopur (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2023 confirming the
judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Vijaypur in SCNIA No.27/2019 whereby the petitioner has been
convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and
sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.3,58,400/-.
After conviction by both the Courts below, now the petitioner and
the respondent/complainant have entered into compromise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant and
the complainant have compromised their dispute for which joint
application of compromise is filed vide I.A. No.11344 of 2024.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already
deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- before the learned Trial Court after
passing of judgment dated 03.05.2024. A copy of the receipt has also
been placed on record.
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:-
(1) 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 of the the case 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 light of the guideline 1(c) since the application for
compounding is filed before this 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, Vijaypur.
Since the amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been deposited with the
Trial Court, the same amount be paid to the district Legal Services
Authority, Vijaypur by way of cost for which parties have no objection.
From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the offence
can be compounded at the revisional stage. Accordingly, I.A. No.11344
of 2024 is allowed and the parties are permitted to compound the case.
In view of the fact that the parties have compounded the offence
and the compounding fee i.e., 15% of the cheque amount has also been
deposited, the revision is allowed and the judgment dated 03.05.2024
passed by learned learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, District-
Sheopur (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2023 confirming the
judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Vijaypur in SCNIA No.27/2019 is set aside. The petitioner is
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
on the basis of compounding of offence. The petitioner is in jail. He be
immediately released if not required in any other case.
Revision is allowed and finally disposed of in above terms.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
pwn*
PAWAN
KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f2
65f02d9d593f, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEE
D89153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN KUMAR
Date: 2024.06.07 11:40:55 +05'30'
JUDGE
