The court allows acquittal under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on a compromise between the parties, subject to cost payment.

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. 426 of 2016 MOHD. NAJIM Versus MOHD. SALIM Appearance:

Shri Vinod Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Anil Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complied with the provisions of Rule 48 of Chapter - X of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008 by surrendering before the trial Court on 29.10.2025, which is evident from the order sheet of the concerned trial Court.

This criminal revision u/s 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1974 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) has been filed by the petitioner against judgment dated 02.01.2016 passed by Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.7100429/2012 arising out of order dated 28.10.2015 passed by JMFC, Jabapur in Criminal Case No.4074/2014, whereby the petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- with default stipulations.

Signature Not Verified

2. As per prosecution case, the respondent/complainant and the petitioner both are known each other. The petitioner borrowed Rs.9,50,000/- from the complainant, in lieu thereof, the petitioner has given a cheque bearing No.067029 drawn at Allahabad Bank dated 03.12.2014. 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 02.01.2016 found the petitioner guilty and convicted him for offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and compensation of Rs.10,95,000/- 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 08.10.2025 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 stated that the 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.

Signature Not Verified

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 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/- to