IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rajendra Kumar Verma, J.
Manmohan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Sahu – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 4983 of 2022
Decided On : 18-01-2023
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the Criminal Revision based on the applicant's argument that they were not aware of the impugned order due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision challenging a judgment convicting them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner surrendered before the trial court and was in judicial custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Criminal Revision and set aside the judgment convicting the petitioner based on the compromise between the parties, acquitting the petitioner from the charges.
Issues: Condonation of delay, Compromise between parties, Acquittal of the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the condonation of delay under the Limitation Act and the compromise between the parties, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision is allowed, and the judgment convicting the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges of Section 138 of N.I. Act based on the compromise between the parties.
ORDER
1. Heard on I.A. No. 24844/2022 which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the brother of the applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not aware about the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 because of pandemic COVID-19 and when it comes to the knowledge of the applicant, he immediately move this Criminal Revision.
3. On consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the ground mentioned in the application, the same (I.A. No. 24844/2022) is allowed. Delay in filing this Criminal Revision is here by condoned.
4. Also heard on I.A. No. 1472/2023 which is an application for compromise under Section 145 of N.I. Act and under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C.
5. Instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal District Bhopal in CRA No. 359/2019, affirming the judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 2431/2018, whereby the learned court below has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,71,385/- as compensation and Rs.9,500/- in accordance with Section 359 of Cr.P.C. After conviction, petitioner surrender before the trial Court and since then he is in judicial custody.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties of the case have entered into out of court settlement, whereby they have agreed on an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent in lieu of the total compensation amount of Rs.1,81,000/- alongwith interest. A registered compromise deed dated 10.01.2023 has also been filed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner behind bar.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that, the parties have entered into settlement. A compromise deed dated 10.01.2023 has been executed between the parties and as per the compromise, respondent has already received Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner.
8. Since, the parties of the case have entered into settlement and a compromised deed dated 10.01.2023 has also been filed before this Court.
9. On due consideration, and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that parties of the case have entered into compromise and the respondent has already been received the compensation amount, no useful purpose would be served to keep the accused behind the bar.
10. Since, the offence has been compounded by the respondent with the petitioner, therefore, this Criminal Revision is allowed and judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed in CRA No. 359/2019 is hereby set aside. Petitioner is acquitted from the charges of Section 138 of N.I. Act on the basis of compromise dated 10.01.2023. He may be released from the judicial custody, if not required in any other case.
11. All the pending interlocutory applications be disposed of.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.
The court considered the condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the application for compromise under Section 138 of N.I. Act and Section 359 of the Cr.P.C., ultimately allowin....
The court can set aside the sentence of imprisonment based on a compromise between the parties and the relevant provisions of the NI Act and legal precedents.
Compromise in criminal cases under Section 138 NI Act can lead to setting aside of conviction if the complainant is satisfied and has received full payment.
Courts may quash non-compoundable Section 138 NI Act conviction via inherent powers upon parties' compromise in private disputes.
Under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an offence under Section 138 is compoundable without court permission, allowing for acquittal upon parties reaching a compromise.
A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed upon the parties reaching a compromise, acknowledging the compoundable nature of the offence under Section 147.
Compromise between parties under Section 147 of the N.I. Act allows for setting aside of conviction, subject to costs as per Supreme Court guidelines.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.