Madhya Pradesh High Court
Haider Ali vs Pushpendra Kumar Patel on 19 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39158
1 CRR-3550-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 19th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3550 of 2025
HAIDER ALI
Versus
PUSHPENDRA KUMAR PATEL
Appearance:
Shri Brajendra Singh Kushwaha- Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 438 r/w Section 442 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant against
judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge,
Rewa, District Rewa in Criminal Appeal No.76/2022 arising out of order
dated 20.06.2022 passed by JMFC, District Rewa in SC NIA
No.29/2020, 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.1,85,000/- with default
stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the
applicant are familiar to each other. The applicant borrowed
Rs.1,41,060/- from the complainant for purchasing the poultry feed, in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39158
2 CRR-3550-2025
lieu thereof, the applicant has given a cheque bearing No.081085 drawn
at SBI Bank, Rewa dated 15.10.2019. When the complainant presented
the said cheque in his Bank account, 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 20.06.2022 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.1,85,000/- 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 on
14.08.2025.
6. In compliance of aforesaid order, the complainant Pushpendra
Kumar Patel 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39158
3 CRR-3550-2025
7. In the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H, (2010) 5
SCC 663., 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 Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the
cheque amount 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:39158
4 CRR-3550-2025
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
SS
