Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chandra Panwar vs Aravind Kumar on 7 April, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9400
1 CRR-1784-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF APRIL, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1784 of 2020
PRAKASH CHANDRA PANWAR
Versus
ARAVIND KUMAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Lokesh Kumar Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Suryawanshi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Amish Sanghvi, learned counsel for the respondent [COMP].
ORDER
1. Present revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of
Cr.P.C has been filed against judgment dated 23.03.2018, passed by Third
Additional Sessions Judge, District Mandsaur in Criminal Appeal
No.236/2016, wherein the appeal has been dismissed by affirming the
judgment dated 02.11.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
District Mandsaur in Criminal Case No.1601/2015, whereby the petitioner
has been convicted for offence under Sections 138 of N.I. Act 1881 and
sentenced for 06 months S.I. and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with default
stipulation.
2. The matter is involved two cheques amount of Rs.25,000/- &
Rs.27,000/- total Rs52,000/- in the present matter.
3. Present revision is filed along with compromise application, which
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9400
2 CRR-1784-2020
was duly verified by Principal Registrar of this Court and vide its report
dated 02.04.2025, as per report both parties have entered into compromise
with their free will and there is no undue influence, pressure, force, duress or
coercion over the parties and the applicant has already paid the entire
amount to the complainant as per their settlement. Hence, prayed that the
sentence of the petitioner be reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Since the parties have entered 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9400
3 CRR-1784-2020
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 complete
justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines
in relation to subject-matter where there was a legislative
vacuum.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9400
4 CRR-1784-2020
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 3% of the cheque amount of Rs.52,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- & Rs.27,000/-) i.e. Rs.1,560/- by way of cost to be deposited
with the "State Legal Services Authority" Indore.
7. Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 3% of the cheque amount
with the "State Legal Services Authority" Indore, within a period of 10 days
from today, the applicant be released from the jail and if not in jail, the
applicant shall be acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of N.I. Act
on the basis of compromise.
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. Pending I.As if any shall stand disposed of.
10. With the aforesaid, revision stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE
Vindesh
