Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sabir Khan vs Tabassum Be on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48677
1 CRR-3067-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 24 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3067 of 2025
SABIR KHAN
Versus
TABASSUM BE
Appearance:
Shri A.S. Hussain- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Mithlesh Pd. Tripathi- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short "Cr.P.C.") r/w 438 read with 442 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (in short 'BNSS') has been filed by the petitioner against judgment
dated 28.06.2025 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in Criminal
Appeal No.22/2025 arising out of order dated 22.03.2025 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, District Harda in SCNIA No.381/2023, whereby the
petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for six months and compensation of
Rs.2,29,400/- 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.000001
drawn at Kotak Mahindra Bank dated 04.08.2023. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48677
2 CRR-3067-2025
138 of NI Act against the petitioner.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 22.03.2025 found the petitioner guilty
and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to
undergo S.I. for six months and compensation of Rs.2,29,400/- 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 22.09.2025 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 Tabassum Be 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48677
3 CRR-3067-2025
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner 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
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.
12. Let a copy of this order be kept in the records of the courts below.
13. The original records be sent back to the concerned courts.
(RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE
SS
