Judicial acquittal under Section 147 of the NI Act is permissible upon amicable settlement and compliance with costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY

th

ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3167 of 2021 MOHAMMED AMEED KHAN Versus MAHESH DEVNANI Appearance:

Shri Vijay Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Salim Ahmad - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and entered into compromise vide order dated 25.02.2019 passed in Cr.R.No.1796/2018, which was duly verified by Registrar (J-II) on 25.02.2019 itself, but the petitioner has not surrendered before the trial Court, therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable. Thereafter petitioner on 09.11.2021 has surrendered before the trial Court, hence this revision petition.

This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 26.02.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhopal in Criminal Appeal No.611/2016 arising out of order dated 27.07.2016 passed by JMFC, Bhopal in R.T No.623/2014, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Signature Not Verified Section 138 (two counts) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and compensation of Rs.9,92,000/- with default stipulations.

2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the petitioner both are known each other. The petitioner borrowed Rs.8,00,000/- from the complainant, in lieu thereof, the petitioner has given two cheques bearing No.079493 and 079494 drawn at Jharneshwar Nagrik Sahkari Bank Maryadit Branch Arera Colony Bhopal dated 10.10.2013. 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 138 of NI Act against the petitioner.

3. The trial Court vide judgment dated 26.02.2018 found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 138 (two counts) of NI Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and compensation of Rs.9,92,000/- 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 applicant 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 25.02.2019 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 stated that the Signature Not Verified parties have amicably settled the dispute ex curiae and he has no objection if the applicant 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. The direction issued in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H , (2010) 5 SCC 663. and thereafter in the case of Sanjabij Tari Vs. Kirshore S. Borcar and another, (Criminal Appeal No.1755/2010) dated 25.9.2025, the compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% 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.

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