28.revn.90.2017 Judgment.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.90 OF 2017 APPLICANT :- Sanjay s/o. Potan Kshirsagar (In Jail) Aged about 33 years, Occ. Buisness, R/o. Khaparde Colony, Gondia, Tah. and District- Gondia. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS :- 1) Lakhanlal S/o. Ramdin Gadewar, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Welding Shop, R/o. Kudwa, Near Ashok Wine Bar, Kudwa, Gondia, Tah. and District-Gondia. 2) State of Maharashtra, Through A.P.P. Gondia, District Gondia. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.D. Chande, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. K.R. Lule, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2/State. Mr. B.M. Kharkate, Advocate for Respondent No.1. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. DATE : 2 1/09/2026 JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant approached this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2014 thereby upholding the conviction of the applicant imposed vide judgment 2026:BHC-NAG:12676 28.revn.90.2017 Judgment.odt 2 and order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Gondia in Summary Criminal Case No.676 of 2008. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Chande as well as the counsel for the respondent Mr. Kharkate submit that the parties have amicably resolved the issue and do not want to pursue the prosecution further. The respondent/ complainant as well as the applicant have filed a joint compromise affidavit dated 16.09.2026. The learned counsel further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari ..vs.. Kishore S. Borcar and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2069, was pleased to direct the compounding of the offences if the payment of cheque is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal. Both the learned counsels therefore submit that the offence may be allowed to be compounded and the impugned order of conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act may be quashed and set aside on compounding. 3. I have gone through the judgment dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Session Judge, Gondia in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2014 as well as the judgment dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Gondia, 28.revn.90.2017 Judgment.odt 3 whereby the learned Magistrate had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, was pleased to observe as under :- “11. The Court in Ramgopal .vs. State of M.P., (2022) 14 SCC 531 further postulated that criminal proceedings involving non- heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate level. The Court, however, being conscious of the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes, or other such unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a settlement is struck post-conviction, the Courts should, interalia, carefully examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, as well as, the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question. While concluding, the Court also formulated certain guidelines and held: (SCC para 19) “19… Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: 19.1 Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; 19.2 Seriousness of the injury, if any; 19.3 Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & 19.4 Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” [Emphasis Applied] 12. In view of the settled proposition of law, we affirm the decision of this Court in Ramgopal (Supra) and reiterate that the powers of this Court under Article 142 can be invoked to quash a criminal proceeding on the basis of a voluntary compromise between the complainant/victim and the accused. 13. We, however, put a further caveat that the powers under Article 142 or under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are exercisable in 28.revn.90.2017 Judgment.odt 4 post-conviction matters only where an appeal is pending before one or the other Judicial forum. This is on the premise that an order of conviction does not attain finality till the accused has exhausted his/her legal remedies and the finality is subjudice before an appellate court. The pendency of legal proceedings, be that may before the final Court, is sinequanon to involve the superior court’s plenary powers to do complete justice. Conversely, where a settlement has ensued post the attainment of all legal remedies, the annulment of proceedings on the basis of a compromise would be impermissible. Such an embargo is necessitated to prevent the accused from gaining an indefinite leverage, for such a settlement/compromise will always be loaded with lurking suspicion about its bona fide. We have already clarified that the purpose of these extraordinary powers is not to incentivise any hollowhearted agreements between the accused and the victim but to do complete justice by effecting genuine settlement(s).” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramawatar (supra) permitted the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of proceedings even after conviction of the accused. The learned Counsel, therefore, prays for quashment of the judgment of conviction as well as the appellate judgment, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari (supra) was pleased to observe as under:- “38. Since a very large number of cheque bouncing cases are still pending and interest rates have fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view that it is time to “revisit and tweak the guidelines”. Accordingly, the aforesaid guidelines of compounding are modified as under:- (a) … (b) … (c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or appeal, such 28.revn.90.2017 Judgment.odt 5 court may compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5 per cent. of the cheque amount by way of costs.” 7. The complainant is present in the Court and was interacted with and he submits that he has voluntarily agreed for the settlement on the condition that the applicant would be paying that amount of cheque to the complainant. He submits that the applicant has deposited amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in cash with registry of this Hon’ble Court on 24.08.2026 and copy of the receipt has been filed through pursis. The amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn in favour of the complainant, who is present in the Court. 8. Mr. Chande, upon instructions submits that he has no objection for withdrawal of such amount in favour of the complainant. 9. Thus, taking into consideration the settlement arrived at which is reflected in the joint compromise affidavit filed on 16.09.2026 on record and the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Ramawater (supra) and Sanjabij Tari (supra), I am inclined to exercise discretion and the inherent power under 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the conviction of the applicant. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order :- 28.revn.90.2017 Judgment.odt 6 ORDER i) The revision application is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Appeal No.05 of 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the applicant. (MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.) C.L. Dhakate Signed by: Mr. C.L. Dhakate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 16:38:17