Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narayanrao Nagle vs Kamal Kishore on 22 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48020
1 CRR-2477-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 22 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2477 of 2025
NARAYANRAO NAGLE
Versus
KAMAL KISHORE
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Chouksey- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.S. Hussain - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision under Section 438 read with 442 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed by the petitioner
against judgment dated 28.05.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Betul (M.P.) in
Criminal Appeal No.154/2023 arising out of order dated 30.11.2023 passed by
JMFC, District Betul in SCNIA No.353/2022, whereby the petitioner has been
convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to undergo S.I. for four months and compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with
default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the petitioner
both are known each other. The petitioner borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the
complainant, in lieu thereof, the petitioner has given a cheque bearing No.064486
drawn at Central Bank of India dated 03.11.2022. 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:48020
2 CRR-2477-2025
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 28.05.2024 found the petitioner guilty
and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to
undergo S.I. for four months and compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- 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 petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner 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 19.09.2025 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 petitioner
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.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to
pay any further amount, as directed by this Court towards the costs. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48020
3 CRR-2477-2025
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 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the
petitioner 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.
12. The original records be sent back to the concerned courts
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
Vin**
