Madhya Pradesh High Court
Reetesh Soni (Jadiya) vs Arjun Jadiya on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40702
1 CRR-3147-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 26 th OF AUGUST, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3147 of 2025
REETESH SONI (JADIYA)
Versus
ARJUN JADIYA
Appearance:
Shri Aseem Kumar Dixit- Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Jagdish Prasad Singrol- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short "Cr.P.C.") r/w 438 read with 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed by the applicant against judgment
dated 20.09.2024 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar, District Sagar
in Criminal Appeal No.94/2024 arising out of order dated 03.06.2024 passed by
JMFC, District Sagar in SC NIA No.316/2021, whereby the applicant has been
convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and compensation of Rs.3,66,832/- with
default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the applicant
both are known each other. The applicant borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the
complainant, in lieu thereof, the applicant has given a cheque bearing No.046591
drawn at Bank of India, Branch Collectorate, Sagar dated 07.06.2021. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40702
2 CRR-3147-2025
Section 138 of NI Act against the applicant.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2024 found the applicant
guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced
to undergo R.I. for six months and compensation of Rs.3,66,832/- 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 18.08.2025 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 Arjun Jadiya 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40702
3 CRR-3147-2025
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 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
Ansari
