Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010178652026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./499/2026 SHRI DURGESWAR BORO S/O MADAN BORO R/O VILL.- SILBARI, P.O.- BAMUNKATA, P.S.-SIMLA DIST.- BAKSA, ASSAM, PIN 781327. VERSUS SMT PRANITA DAS W/O- VIJAY PRASAD, R/O LOCO COLONY, PANDU, GUWAHATI, P.S.- JALUKBARI,DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN-781012. Advocate for the Petitioner : PRATUL THAKURIA, MR. S MEDHI,MR. G KAKOTI Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER 28.09.2026 Heard Mr. P. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. The petitioner has filed this revision aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in CR Case No. 1213c/2018. The trial court judgment of conviction and sentence was upheld by the learned appellate court. Page No.# 2/6 3. Aggrieved by the said concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court, the applicant herein has filed the criminal revision registered and numbered as Criminal Revision Petition No.7513/2026. 4. It is submitted that in the meantime, the parties have arrived at a settlement quantified at Rs.3 lakhs, and the respondent/complainant has also received the same. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent to record that settlement. It is stated therein that the total compensation of Rs.3 lakhs was received on 05.09.2026, whereupon, a money acknowledgment receipt has been issued, which is annexed with the affidavit as Annexure-B. It is stated in the affidavit that in view of the settlement, the complainant is not willing to pursue the matter. 5. Under Section 147 of the NI Act, the offences under section 138 of the Act are compoundable. It is well settled that compounding an offence and its acceptance before the Court, constitutes an acquittal of the accused. 6. In the present facts and circumstances, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties which is also concurred with and supported by the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, there is no reason not to accept the proposal for compounding of the offence. 7. However, in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down some guidelines regarding terms of settlement of cheque bouncing cases. One of the stipulations is that if compounding is at the stage of Sessions Court or High Court, the accused has to pay an amount of 15% of the cheque Page No.# 3/6 amount before the jurisdictional Legal Services Authority or such authority as the Court may deem fit. The relevant para 21 may be reproduced herein below: “21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding g of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed. THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows: (a) That directions can be given that the writ of summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could 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. (b) 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 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. (c) 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. (d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Page No.# 4/6 Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.” 8. On this point, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a subsequent decision, the aforesaid principles were modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar, 2025 INSC 1158. The relevant paragraph 38 is reproduced herein below:- “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) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused. (b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the Court deems fit. (c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or Appeal, such Court may compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs. (d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before this Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the cheque amount.” 9. Thus, in the present situation, upon composition of the case, the petitioner is required to pay 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of cost to be deposited before the Legal Services Authority. 10. The learned counsel also refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, SLP Page No.# 5/6 (Criminal) No. 14340/2025, where in the facts of the case, the Court waived the payment of such costs. The relevant para 7 may be reproduced herein below:- “7.The law laid down in the aforementioned judgment cannot be regarded as a binding precedent, as eyery case must be considered on its own facts. In the present case, we are inclined to hold that the direction imposing costs on the appellant, to be paid to the Legal Services Authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law, particularly when the complainant does not want any further amount and the appellant has expressed his inability to comply with the same, which aspect is not in dispute.” 11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner is agreeable to payment of 7.5% in terms of the guidelines in Sanjabij Tari (supra). 12. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the proposal for compounding of the case at this stage is accepted and the petitioner stands acquitted of his conviction and sentence in CR Case No. 1213/2018, which was also upheld by the Appellate Court at the District level. 13. Further, the aforesaid composition and the consequential acquittal would be subject to deposit of 7.5% of the cheque amount of Rs. 2,45,000/- before the office of the District Legal Services Authority, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 14. The said deposit may be made within a period of one month. 15. The criminal revision accordingly stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 16. Original records, if any, shall be sent back to the learned trial court. Page No.# 6/6 17. In view of the aforementioned acceptance of the composition and the consequential acquittal, the petitioner, who is stated to be in custody, shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless wanted in any other case. 18. A copy of this order shall be urgently furnished to the concerned jail authority. JUDGE Comparing Assistant