SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 11123

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Hukumchand – Appellant
Versus
Sureshchandra – Respondent
CRR 4341/2025



Advocates:
Akhilesh Kumar Saxena,

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37806

1 CRR-4341-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4341 of 2025

HUKUMCHAND

Versus

SURESHCHANDRA

Appearance:

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ritu Raj Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent [R-1].

Heard on: 24.11.2025

Delivered On: 24.12.2025

ORDER

This criminal revision is preferred under Section 438 read with Section

442 of BNSS, 2023 challenging the illegality of judgment dated 21.08.2025

in CRA No.28/2024 by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Alot District

Ratlam arising out of the judgment dated 10.08.2024 in SCNIA No.04/2021

by JMFC, Alot, Ratlam whereby the appellant has been convicted under

section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881 and has been sentenced to till rising of the

Court with compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum

from 01.04.2020 till realization under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C with default

stipulation of 06 months R.I.

2. Facts in brief are that a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act,

1881 was preferred before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alot, Ratlam

on 01.01.2020 alleging dishonor of cheque valued Rs.5,30,000/- drawn by

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AMIT KUMAR

Signing time: 24-12-2025

19:28:41

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37806

2 CRR-4341-2025

revision petitioner in favour of respondent and on non-payment within the

statutory period after service of notice.

3. The revision petitioner abjured the guilt and respondent/complainant

examined himself as PW-1 and adduced the documents Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/4. He

was cross examined on the strength of Ex.D/1 and D/2.

4. Appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court has convicted the

revision petitioner under Section 138 of N.I.Act, 1881 and sentenced for six

months R.I. and awarded compensation of Rs.7,36,000/- and Rs.10,000/-

towards the cost of proceedings with default stipulation of 10 days R.I.

5. In appeal, the conviction was maintained but sentence was modified

to the extent as mentioned in para no.1 of this order.

6. Challenging the conviction as well as the sentence, this criminal

revision petition is preferred on the ground that the matter relates to civil

transaction of agreement to sale as mentioned in Ex.D/1 and Ex.D/2. Instead

of proceeding through civil court, the course of criminal proceedings in not

permissible and both the courts below have committed error in convicting

and sentencing the revision petitioner.

7. Heard.

8. Counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer.

9. Perused the record.

10. The record discloses that the revision petitioner and respondent

entered into an agreement to sale regarding the house of revision petitioner

situated at Ward No.1, Jagdevganj, Alot for a consideration of

Rs.71,00,000/- vide Ex.D/1 and out of sale consideration, an amount of

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AMIT KUMAR

Signing time: 24-12-2025

19:28:41

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:37806

3 CRR-4341-2025

Rs.7,00,000/- was paid and the cheques of rest amount were to be cleared

after the execution of the sale deed. The above transaction failed and both the

parties entered into and agreement Ex.D/2 and the revision petitioner

returned the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in cash and issued a cheque of

Rs.5,30,000/- for rest of the amount of consideration of Rs.4,75,000/-

including the interest.

11. The cheque Ex.D/1 was dishonor and criminal prosecution was

lodged. The fact that cheque was issued by revision petitioner and that was

dishonor, is not disputed. When the cheque was issued then the provision of

Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 automatically came into operation. The

transaction has the implications of civil as well as criminal nature.

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, by both the

Courts below does not required interference, hence, it is affirmed.

12. Now, come to the quantum of sentence. The cheque amount of

Rs.5,30,000/- have already included the amount of Rs.55,000/- as interest.

The fai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top