Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gurmit Singh Saini vs Nirnjan Singh on 26 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40800
1 CRR-5126-2019
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. 5126 of 2019
GURMIT SINGH SAINI
Versus
NIRNJAN SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Kumar Singh - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Ashley Johnmathew - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") r/w Section 438 read with 442 of Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short "BNSS") has been filed by the applicant
against judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed by the 19th Additional Sessions Judge,
Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.283/2017 arising out of the order dated
16.06.2017 passed by the JMFC, Jabalpur in SCNIA No.4630/2014, whereby the
applicant has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for six months with compensation of
Rs.72,000/- with default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the applicant purchased four old Ceat tyres worth
Rs.73,000/- from the respondent and in lie thereof the applicant has given
Rs.19,500/- in cash and for rest of the amount i.e. Rs.53,000/- he has given cheque
bearing No.235277 of Orintal Bank of Commerce, Branch Marahatal, Jabalpur.
When the complainant presented the said cheque in his Bank account, it got
dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant lodged a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40800
2 CRR-5126-2019
complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the applicant.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 16.06.2017 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.72,000/- 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 20.06.2025 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 Nirnjan Singh 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
should of course contest the proceedings to their logical end.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40800
3 CRR-5126-2019
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.
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
Vin**
