Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Singh Parihar vs Smt. Roopa Singh Tomar on 24 July, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15486
1 CRR-4932-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 24th OF JULY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4932 of 2019
MAHENDRA SINGH PARIHAR
Versus
SMT. ROOPA SINGH TOMAR
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Rai - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Arshad Ali M. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") being aggrieved by the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18/09/2019 passed by IX Additional
Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.351/2018, whereby the
judgment dated 13/08/2018 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class
Gwalior in Criminal Case No.121649/2016 has been affirmed, whereby the petitioner
has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short,
'NI Act') and sentenced with admonition and compensation amount of Rs.9,54,485/-
with usual default stipulation.
The prosecution story in brief is that respondent / complainant filed a criminal
complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner/accused before the court
of JMFC, Gwalior stating that he along with husband was well known to the petitioner
since last so many years. In February, 2014, she advanced an amount of Rs.7,70,000/-
to the petitioner for his business requirement as a loan. The petitioner had issued a
cheque of Rs.3,45,479/- dated 22.05.2016 in favour of complainant/respondent towards
repayment of the aforesaid amount. When she presented this cheque for encasement in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15486
2 CRR-4932-2019
the state Bank of India, Branch Morar, Distt. Gwalior, it was dishonored on 20.06.2016
with a remark of insufficient fund. Thereafter, at the request of petitioner, she again
placed the same cheque for encasement but the same was again dishonored with the
same comment, then she sent a legal notice dated 24.09.2016 to the petitioner for
payment of cheque amount but when she did not get the said amount back within the
stipulated period, then she filed complaint. On the aforesaid complaint, the learned
Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Act
against the petitioner.
The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both the parties
scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and convicted the applicant /
accused under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him as stated herein above. Being
aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the petitioner has preferred a Criminal
Appeal before the appellate court but the same was also dismissed affirming the
judgment passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and the
sentence passed by both the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred present criminal
revision before this Court.
The petitioner has preferred the present revision on several grounds, but during
the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is facing trial
since 2016. He has already deposited compensation amount of Rs.9,54,485/- before the
trial Court immediately after filing of this criminal revision on 18.10.2019. He submits
that he does not want to press this criminal revision on merits and he is not assailing the
conviction part of the judgment but he confines his argument only to the extent of
quantum of sentence part. His only prayer is that sentence of petitioner be reduced to
the payment of compensation which the petitioner has already deposited before the
trial court. The petitioner is regularly marking his presence before the Court.
Therefore, his sentence may be reduced to the payment of compensation as imposed by
the trial court.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15486
3 CRR-4932-2019
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer supporting the
impugned judgment of conviction and prayed for rejection of this criminal revision.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and considered his argument and perused
the record and evidence available on record.
In view of the above submissions, although the conviction has not been
challenged, but perusal of the evidence available on record also justifies the judgments
of conviction passed by both the Courts below.
So far as the quantum of sentence is concerned, the petitioner has already
deposited the compensation of Rs.9,54,485/- before the trial court, therefore, nothing
remains to be adjudicated upon in the matter. Hence, this criminal revision has rendered
infructuous and deserves to be dismissed.
Consequently, this revision is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. The trial
court is directed to disburse the amount of compensation of Rs.9,54,485/- to the
respondent/complainant after due verification. His bail bond and surety bond stand
discharged.
Let a copy of this order along with record of both the Courts below be sent back
to the concerned Courts for information and necessary compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Rks
