The court clarified that a compoundable offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded by legal representatives, but certiorari is limited to jurisdictional errors.

O R D E R

This writ petition was listed before this Court along with Criminal Revision No.2141/2025. Heard on the question of maintainability.

2. The instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (wife of the original complainant since dead) against the judgment dated 16.1.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.41/2014 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has convicted the respondent (accused before the trial Court) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with compensation of Rs.65,000/- with default stipulation.

3. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner and respondent have settled their dispute amicably according to which after the death of original complainant his wife Smt. Jaikunwar Yadav (petitoiner) entered into compromise with the respondent/accused and they have agreed upon that the respondent/accused shall pay Rs.one lakh to the petitioner, against which the amount deposited by the respondent/accused with the trial Court or the appellate Court shall be adjusted, therefore, writ of certiorari be issued and judgment dated 16.01.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.41/2014 be set-aside on the basis of the compromise.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable since the original complainant had died, therefore, his wife being legal representative is competent to compound the offence, therefore, in the interest of justice, this writ petition be allowed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 11.8.2025 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand Garg Vs. Harpal Singh and another , SLP (Criminal) No.8050/2025 and the order dated 23.5.2024 passed in Cr.MMO No.340/2024 by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Budhi Singh Vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh and another

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has expressed no objection in agreeing with the settlement arrived between the parties and in setting aside the impugned judgment.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

7. In order to examine the maintainability of this writ petition, it is apposite to unfold the certain facts, which reveal from the link matter i.e. Criminal Revision No.2141/2025.

8. In a nutshell, respondent Brijkishore has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity “N.I.Act”) and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with compensation of Rs.65,000/- with default stipulations vide judgment dated 16.1.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tikamgarh in Criminal Case No.41/2014. The conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh vide judgment dated 8.8.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No.29/2017.

9. The respondent/accused had filed a criminal petition No.706/2021 against his conviction and sentence, which was dismissed being not maintainable as per Chapter 10 Rule 48 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 and the same was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh revision petition after his surrender. Thereafter the respondent-accused has filed Criminal Revision No.2141/2025 but without surrendering, therefo