IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE ON THE 06TH OF JUNE, 2024 CRIMINAL REVISION No.2462 of 2024 BETWEEN:-

GANDHARV SINGH S/O SIYARAM SIKARWAR, AGE 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHARIKA, TEHSIL JOURA, DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

….....PETITIONER (BY SHRI B.K. SHARMA – ADVOCATE)

AND DILIP S/O RAMGOPAL MITTAL, CASTE VAISYA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE WARD NO.6, NEAR HOSPITAL VIJAYPUR, DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

….....RESPONDENT (BY SHRI SHEESHU YADAV – ADVOCATE)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition coming on for admission/orders this day, the Court passed the following:

ORDER

This present criminal revision is filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 03.05.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, District- Sheopur (M.P.) in Criminal Appeal No.46 of 2023 confirming the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vijaypur in SCNIA No.27/2019 whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced to undergo 01 year R.I. with fine of Rs.3,58,400/-.

After conviction by both the Courts below, now the petitioner and the respondent/complainant have entered into compromise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant and the complainant have compromised their dispute for which joint application of compromise is filed vide I.A. No.11344 of 2024.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs.60,000/- before the learned Trial Court after passing of judgment dated 03.05.2024. A copy of the receipt has also been placed on record.

There is no impediment in accepting the compromise between the parties at this stage in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 in which guidelines are there to be followed in the matter of compromise between accused and the complainant in the matters of 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The guidelines are reproduced below:-

(1) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:-

(a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of of the the case case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the Court without imposing any costs on the accused.

(b) IF the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, 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.

(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.

In light of the guideline 1(c) since the application for compounding is filed before this Court in a revisional stage hence the same is liable to be allowed on a condition to deposit 15% of the cheque amount by way of cost with the Legal Services Authority, Vijaypur. Since the amount of Rs.60,000/- has already been deposited with the Trial Court, the same amount be paid to the district Legal Services Authority, Vijaypur by way of cost for which parties have no objection.

From perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the offence can be compounded at the revisional stage. Accordingly, I.A. No.11344 of