Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandrabhan Patel vs Asharam Yadav on 13 August, 2025
1
Cr.R.No.3696/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 13th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.3696/2025
CHANDRABHAN PATEL
VS.
ASHARAM YADAV
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Applicant by Shri Sandeep Mahawar - Advocate.
Respondent by Shri S.K. Shah - Advocate.
................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C r/w 438/442 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. has been filed by the
applicant against judgment dated 25.11.2024 passed by 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Appeal No.26/2024 arising out of
order dated 23.01.2024 passed by JMFC, District Damoh in SC NIA
No.198/2022, whereby the applicant has been convicted for offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for three months and compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- with
default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and
the applicant have friendly relations. The applicant contacted the
complainant and borrowed Rs.1.05 Lakh as loan for family needs, in
lieu thereof, the applicant has given a cheque bearing No.062278 drawn
at IDBI Bank, dated 15.05.2022. When the complainant presented the
said cheque in his account at State Bank of India, Hindoriya, it got
dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant
lodged a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the applicant.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 23.01.2024 found the
applicant guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI
Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and compensation of
Rs.1,15,000/- 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
13.08.2025 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 Asharam
Yadav 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 ready to pay any further amount, as directed
by this Court towards the costs. 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case, the applicant is directed to deposit 5% of cheque amount i.e.
Rs.5,250/- towards costs before the trial Court within a period of 15
days from today. If the applicant deposits aforesaid amount within the
stipulated time, he shall be released from jail forthwith if his custody is
not required in connection with any other case. 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.
10. 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
