Madhya Pradesh High Court
Goverdhan Singh vs Ajab Singh on 6 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3119
1 CRR-6269-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6269 of 2024
GOVERDHAN SINGH
Versus
AJAB SINGH
Appearance:
Shri Harshit Julaniya - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Bablu Patel - Advocate for respondent No. 1.
ORDER
The present revision is filed against judgment dated 18.07.2024 passed by
the learned Session Judge, District Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2024
confirming the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,
District Shajapur in SC NIA No. 231/2021 whereby applicant has been convicted
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo
Simple Imprisonment of one year with compensation amount of Rs. 3,63,600/-.
Hence, the present revision before this Court.
2. As per the facts of the case, complainant/respondent and applicant are
relatives and were known to each other. On 19.05.2019, applicant came to the
house of the complainant seeking loan of Rs. 3 lakhs for agricultural work. The
said amount was given to the applicant in the presence of witness Balusingh and
Vishal. Applicant assured to return the amount by June 2021. Thereafter,
applicant came to the house of the and handed over cheque bearing No. 000007 of
AU Small Finance, Branch Agar Malwa dated 03.07.2021. However, the cheque
was dishonoured with a tip 'Account Closed'. On 13.08.2021 complainant filed a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3119
2 CRR-6269-2024
private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. against the applicant for
commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.
3. After filing of the present revision, parties have entered into settlement
and filed applications I.A.No. 1114/2025 and 1115/2025 for compromise. Vide
order 24.01.2025, they were directed to appear before the Principal Registrar of
this Bench for verification of compromise. The Principal Registrar has submitted
a report verifying the factum of compromise.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant has
received the entire amount. Applicant is in jail since 23.11.2024. Hence, prayer is
made to allow the revision.
5. In view of the compromise arrive at between the parties and the fact
that the offence is compoundable in nature, permission is granted to compound
the offence. Since, the parties are entering into compromise at the stage of
revision, therefore, law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 shall apply.
Paragraph No.21 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing
cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame
guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who
unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the
requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed
composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at
any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the
cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for
compounding made after several years not only results in the system
being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective
justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following
guidelines be followed:-
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably
modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an
application for compounding of the offences at the first or second
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:3119
3 CRR-6269-2024
hearing of the case and that if such an application is made,
compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs
on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as
aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the
Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject
to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the
cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with
the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made Criminal
Revision No.3198/2021 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.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the
Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque
amount."
6. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are hereby set aside. Applicant
is acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act. Subject to payment of cost at the rate of 15% of the cheque amount with the
M.P.State Legal Services Authority, the applicant shall be released from the jail.
With the aforesaid direction, revision stands allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
vidya
