1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 336 of 2017 1 - Shyamlal Choudhary S/o Chakrawarti Choudhary, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Limgaon, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Sukanti Patel W/o Jai Prakash Patel, Proprietor, Jai Fabrication Kutela Chowk, Saraipali, Present Address Village Kena, Post Office Chhattigirola, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Rahul Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 06.01. 202 6 1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 13.02.2017 whereby the Criminal Appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed holding that in view of provisions of Section 372 and 378(4) of CrPC, the Criminal Appeal filed by the applicant under the proviso of Section 372 CrPC is not maintainable, against which the present revision has been filed. 2. The subject matter in brief is that, the applicant was complainant before the trial court. He prosecuted a complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act, 1881) against the respondent with the allegation that the cheque given by the accused to the complainant for Rs.2,95,000/- bearing Cheque INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.08 10:34:24 +0530 2 No.506954, dated 25.07.2013, was dishonored by the payee bank and despite service of legal demand notice the accused has failed to pay the amount of cheque and therefore he filed the complaint case against the accused. During trial of the case, the parties have entered into compromise and on 14.09.2015 a compromise application was also filed before the trial court in which the parties have stated that they have settled their dispute and an agreement was also executed between them and the complainant has admitted that he received the entire amount of cheque Rs.2,95,000/- from the accused and after completion of trial, the trial court has considered that since the parties have entered into compromise and the entire amount of cheque has been paid to the complainant, though the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, he was sentenced for only fine amount of Rs.1000/- vide judgment dated 15.03.2016. 3. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 15.03.2016 whereby the accused was sentenced for fine of Rs.1000/-only, the complainant filed a Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No.02/2017 under Section 374 CrPC and prayed for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused. After hearing the parties, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal filed by the complainant was not maintainable for enhancement of sentence and has dismissed the appeal which is under challenge in the present Criminal Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the complainant comes under the definition of victim and therefore the first appeal was maintainable before the trial court. Though the appeal was filed under 3 Section 374 CrPC, but merely coding wrong provision does not dis- entitle the applicant for non filing of any appeal under the relevant provisions of law and only on this ground the appeal filed by the applicant has been dismissed by the trial court which is erroneous and liable to be set aside and the impugned judgment passed by the appellate court is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even if the appeal is held to be maintainable before the first appellate court under the proviso of Section 372 CrPC filed by the complainant, he had challenged the sentence part and the trial court after considering the compromise between the parties have rightly sentenced the accused and therefore there is no scope for any interference either in the appeal filed by the complainant or in the present criminal revision also. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial court. 7. Though the complainant comes under the definition of victim as provided under proviso of Section 372 CrPC and also as per judgment passed by the Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial Vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc. 2025 SCC Online SC 1320, yet, this court after examining the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as sentence awarded to the accused in the case, does not find any illegality or infirmity in sentencing the accused. From the document available in the record of the trial court it transpires that there was a compromise application filed by the parties before the trial court which were signed by the parties in which it was mentioned that the 4 complainant has received the entire amount of cheque i.e. Rs.2,95,000/- from the accused and he does not want to prosecute the complaint case any further. Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties, the trial court while exercising its discretion sentenced the accused with fine of Rs.1000/- only. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, it cannot be said that the sentence awarded by the trial court to the accused is arbitrary or disproportionate. Despite arriving at compromise between the parties, the complainant claimed relief for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused, which in the opinion of this court is not bonafide and therefore this court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the order passed by the first appellate court warranting interference in the matter. 8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder