1 2025:CGHC:45119 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 732 of 2024 Gulabchand Patel S/o Late Baluram Patel Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 305, Shankar Para Purva Dadar Charoda, Tahsil Dhamdha, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Applicant versus Amit Agrawal S/o Naresh Agrawal R/o. G.E. Road, Charoda, Tahsil- Bhilai-3, District- Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent ____________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 03/09/2025 1. Applicant has filed this revision petition challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 19.06.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.289/2023, by which learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) has maintained the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2023, passed in Complaint Case No. 417/2018, whereby the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhilai-3, District – Durg convicted applicant for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of the Negotiable BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.22 10:58:21 +0530 2 Instrument Act, 1881 (In short ‘the Act of 1881’) and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 3 months with fine of Rs.1,25,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Today, both petitioner and respondent appeared through their learned counsel and submitted that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. Applicant has deposited Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 36,000/- before the trial Court, and an amount of Rs. 65,000/- has been paid to the respondent on 26.08.2025 in cash towards compensation, as awarded by learned trial Court, which has been duly acknowledged by respondent. They also submit that, following an amicable settlement between the parties, they have jointly filed an application under Section 147 of the Act of 1881, seeking permission from this Court to compound the offence. 3. Provisions U/s. 147 of the Act of 1881 deals with offences to be compoundable and reads as under :- “147. Offences to be compoundable. — Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable.” 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 while dealing with the issue has observed as under :- “7. This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. 3 Dishonour of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 Amendment specifically made it compoundable. ……” 18.2. The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court. 18.3. Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.” 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court further in case of P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 258, has observed as under :- “50. By an Amendment Act of 2002, various other sections were added to this Chapter. Thus, under Section 143, it is lawful for a Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and a fine exceeding INR 5,000/- summarily. This provision is again an important pointer to the fact that the payment of compensation is at the heart of the provision in that a fine exceeding INR 5000/-, the sky being the limit, can be imposed by way of a summary trial which, after application of Section 357 of the CrPC, results in compensating the victim up to twice the 4 amount of the bounced cheque. Under Section 144, the mode of service of summons is done as in civil cases, eschewing the mode contained in Sections 62 to 64 of the CrPC. Likewise, under Section 145, evidence is to be given by the complainant on affidavit, as it is given in civil proceedings, notwithstanding anything contained in the CrPC. Most importantly, by Section 147, offences under this Act are compoundable without any intervention of the court, as is required by Section 320(2) of the CrPC.” 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.V. Seshaiah Vs. State of Telangana & Anr., reported in (2023) 18 SCC 512, reiterating the decision in case of M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited (supra) has held as under :- “8. In such a circumstance, the Appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence. 9. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kanchan Mehta, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560, this court held that the nature of offence under section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein: “This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and credibility of 5 business transactions suffers a set back. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under Section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable.” 11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.” 7. Considering the submission of learned counsel for respective parties, the provisions of the Act of 1881 and principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, joint application filed by the parties U/s. 147 of the Act of 1881 for compromise is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offence for which applicant has been convicted in the present case. Consequently, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Appellate Court as well as by Trial Court are set-aside and applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. 8. As submitted by counsel for applicant that, the applicant has further deposited Rs.36,000/- before trial Court pursuant to order dated 22.07.2024 and is still lying there, and prayer made in settlement deed for its disbursement, it is directed that, if any amount deposited by the applicant as part of compensation and lying there it shall be disburse in favour of respondent/complainant verifying the same. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram