Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sarfraj @ Mubarak vs Ganesh Nathani on 28 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53798
1 CRR-4612-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 28 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4612 of 2025
SARFRAJ @ MUBARAK
Versus
GANESH NATHANI
Appearance:
Shri Aman Soni - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Avinash Kumar Tiwari - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 438 read with 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed by the petitioner against
judgment dated 11.02.2025 passed by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, District
Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.251/2024 arising out of order dated 04.01.2024
passed by JMFC, Bhopal in RCT No.9486/2014, whereby the petitioner 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.28,669/- with
default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the petitioner
both are known each other. The petitioner borrowed Rs.15,000/- from the
complainant, in lieu thereof, the petitioner has given a cheque bearing No.371274
drawn at State Bank of India dated 19.11.2013. 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 petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53798
2 CRR-4612-2025
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 04.01.2024 found the petitioner
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.28,669/- with default
stipulations.
4. The petitioner 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 28.10.2025 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 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. The direction issued in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal
H, (2010) 5 SCC 663. and thereafter in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kirshore S.
Borcar and another, (Criminal Appeal No.1755/2010) dated 25.9.2025 , the
compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or
appeal on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% 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 petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in jail
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:53798
3 CRR-4612-2025
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
petitioner 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 petitioner
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 147 of NI Act and, therefore, the
petitioner is acquitted from offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act.
11. The revision is accordingly disposed of.
12. 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**
