1 2025:CGHC:48713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 407 of 2019 1 - Brijmohan Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kalicharan Agrawal Aged About 59 Years R/o Danipara, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Avinash Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jamuna Prasad Sahu Aged About 57 Years Occupation- Agriculture And Business, R/o Village- Chiraidand, Thana- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. T.R. Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vikas Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Judgment on Board 23/09/2025 1. Heard. 2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant challenging the order dated 08.10.2018 passed by the Judicial 2 Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to as “JMFC Raigarh”) in Complaint Case No.391/2010, whereby, as in compliance of the order of the Court, the respondent/accused deposited the cheque amount of Rs.80,000/- in CCD, Raigarh and also deposited Rs.8,000/- in account of the District Legal Services Authority, thereafter, the learned trial Court, vide impugned order, dismissed the complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant declaring it to be abated in compliance of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 and Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that though the respondent/accused has deposited the amount of cheque, but no settlement has been accepted by appellant/complainant. He would further submit that the amount of impugned cheques was Rs.80,000/- and subject cheques were issued on 26.06.2008. The complaint was filed by appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act”) on 31.08.2010 and alleged cheque amount of Rs.80,000/- has been deposited by respondent/accused in compliance of the order of learned trial Court in the month of October, 2018 i.e. after about 10 years from the date of impugned cheques and after about 8 years from the date of filing of complaint. No amount of interest or compensation has been directed to be paid by the learned trial Court on said amount of cheques, whereas in the case of Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, if accused wishes to deposit the amount as assessed by the Court having regard to the 3 cheque amount, interest/cost etc., then, proceedings may be dropped. But in instant case, apart from cheque amount, no interest or cost has been directed to be paid to the appellant/complainant, therefore, the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality, hence, he prays that this appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 08.10.2018 and the ancillary order dated 27.09.2018 and the concerned JMFC may be directed to restore Complaint Case No.391/2010 (Brijmohan Agrawal vs. Avinash Kumar Sahu) in its original number, and after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties, decide the case on merit. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, while supporting the impugned order, would submit that as per the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), cheque amount has been deposited by the respondent/accused along with Rs.8,000/- in the account of District Legal Services Committee as directed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 27.09.2018, therefore, this appeal is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, “…….if the accused make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused. If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a 4 subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the court deems fit. Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs. Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.” 7. Thus, though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, compounding may be accepted subject to payment of 10% of the cheque amount in the account of District Legal Services Committee, but such compounding ought to have been sought by the accused at the first or second hearing. Though, on subsequent stage, Magistrate can grant compounding under the condition as has been specified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), but, in the matter of Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “on account of compounding the offences, the Court may close proceedings if accused deposits amount as assessed by it having regard to the cheque amount, interest/cost etc. within stipulated period.” 8. Perusal of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly says that compounding must be at initial stage and if compounding is made in subsequent stage, then the amount of 5 compounding ought to have been assessed by the Court, having regard to cheque amount, interest/cost etc. meaning thereby, if compounding is accepted belatedly, then, appropriate interest/cost ought to have been directed to be paid to the complainant / drawee from the respondent/accused. 9. In instant case, as has been stated in preceding paragraph that after about 10 years from the date of issuance of cheques and after 8 years from the date of filing of complaint, compounding has been accepted by the trial Court on plain cheque amount i.e. Rs.80,000/-. No amount of interest or penalty or compensation has been directed to be paid to appellant/complainant, therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 08.10.2018 and the ancillary order dated 27.09.2018 have been passed in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in aforecited cases. Thus, the impugned order suffers from perversity and illegality, hence, the impugned order dated 08.10.2018 and the ancillary order dated 27.09.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh (CG) in Complaint Case No.391/2010 are set aside. Consequently, order of acquittal of respondent/accused is also set aside. The matter is remitted back to the concerned JMFC, Raigarh to restore Complaint Case No.391/2010 (Brijmohan Agrawal vs. Avinash Kumar Sahu) filed under Section 200 of the CrPC for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, in its original number and shall proceed in the case from the stage of complainant’s evidence as was fixed on 27.09.2018. 10. Accordingly, this Acquittal Appeal is allowed. 6 11. Appropriate order may be passed by the concerned trial Court with regard to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/- deposited by the respondent/accused in CCD, Raigarh vide receipt No.67027/48, if the same has not been withdrawn by the appellant/complainant. 12. Record of the concerned trial Court be returned forthwith along with copy of this order. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.09.25 17:36:30 +0530