Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamrao vs Vikas on 25 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49064
1 CRR-2987-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 25 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2987 of 2025
SHYAMRAO
Versus
VIKAS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.Tripathi- Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ahmad Sajid Hussain- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of Cr.P.C r/w 438/442 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner against judgment
dated 24.2.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Criminal Appeal
No.03/2025 arising out of order dated 6.12.2024 passed by the JMFC, Burhanpur
District Burhanpur in SC NIA No.617/2019, whereby the petitioner has been
convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and compensation of Rs.4,69,425/- with
default stipulations.
2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the petitioner
have friendly relations. The petitioner contacted the complainant and borrowed
Rs.three lakhs as loan for family needs, in lieu thereof, the petitioner has given a
cheque bearing No.354520 drawn at State Bank of India, dated 27.08.2018. When
the complainant presented the said cheque in his account at State Bank of India,
Shahpur District Burhanpur, it got dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49064
2 CRR-2987-2025
against the petitioner.
3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 6.12.2024 found the petitioner guilty
and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for one year and compensation of Rs.4,69,425/- 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
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 24.09.2025 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 Vikas Patel 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. However, the Registrar (Judicial-II) has pointed out that the
petitioner is required to deposit 15% of cheque amount towards compounding fee
in view of decision of in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H,
(2010) 5 SCC 663.
7. In Damodardas S. Prabhu (supra), 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49064
3 CRR-2987-2025
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 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
Ansari
