Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rk Lalwani vs Rupesh Gorkhe on 12 August, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
Cr.R.No.3576/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 12th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.3576/2025
R.K. LALWANI
VS.
RUPESH GORKHE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Applicant by Shri Neeraj Jain - Advocate.
Respondent by Shri Piyush Tiwari - Advocate.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
by the applicant against judgment dated 25.04.2024 passed by 25 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal in Criminal Appeal
No.13/2023 arising out of order dated 18.11.2022 passed by JMFC,
District Bhopal in RCT No.3001884/2015, whereby the applicant has
been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and
compensation of Rs.57,59,000/- with default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant deals
in buying and selling of land and the applicant also deals in buying and
selling of the land. The applicant contacted the complainant and
borrowed Rs.30 Lakh as loan for personal needs and to purchase land, in
lieu thereof, the applicant has given a cheque bearing No.083309 drawn
at HDFC Bank, Branch Chunabhatti, Kolar Road, Bhopal dated
10.01.2013. When the complainant presented the said cheque in his
account at State Bank of India, Shahpura, it got dishonoured due to
closure of the account and then again the applicant gave another cheque,
which was also got dishonoured due to closure of the account.
Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of NI
Act against the applicant.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 18.11.2022 found the
applicant guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and compensation of
Rs.57,59,000/- with default stipulations.
4. The applicant being aggrieved with the judgment of the trial
Court preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which has
affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the
applicant. Hence, the applicant preferred instant revision.
5. During the pendency of this revision, the parties have
arrived at a compromise and, therefore, this Court vide order-sheet dated
12.08.2025 directed the parties to personally appear before the Registrar
Judicial of this Court for verification of their compromise.
6. In compliance of aforesaid order, the complainant Rupesh
Gorkhe stated that the parties have amicably settled the dispute ex
curiae and he has no objection if the applicant is acquitted of the charge
levelled against him. He further stated that he has entered into the
compromise out of his own volition and without any compulsion.
However, the Registrar (Judicial-II) has pointed out that the applicant is
required to deposit 15% of cheque amount towards compounding fee in
view of decision of in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H, (2010) 5 SCC 663.
7. In Damodardas S. Prabhu (supra), the Supreme Court
has directed that 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. Further, it has been held that 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.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is in jail and he is not in a position to pay any further amount.
The respondent appeared in person before the Court and submitted
through counsel that he is willing to compound the offence as per their
settlement arrived at outside the court and he has also submitted that he
has forgiven the 15% of cheque amount by way of cost or any amount
of costs.
9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and the cost amount forgiven by the respondent, it is appropriate to
allow the compounding of offence under Section 147 of N.I. Act.
Therefore, the application under Section 147 of N.I.Act is allowed. It is
directed that the applicant shall be released from jail forthwith if his
custody is not required in connection with any other case.
10. In view of aforesaid compromise, it is made clear that this
order would have the effect of acquittal under Section 320 (8) of the
Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the applicant is acquitted from offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
11. The revision is accordingly disposed of. Let a copy of this
order be kept in the records of the courts below. The original records be
sent back to the concerned courts.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
sudesh
