1 2026:CGHC:22048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1328 of 2026 1. Pasharvanath Weld Wires Private Limited, Through its Director Hemant Jain, Address Plot No C-4 M.I.D.C. Butibori, Nagpur, P.S.- Butibori, District- Nagpur, Maharashtra 2. Hemant Jain, S/o Nandlal Jain, aged about 54 Years, Occupation- Business, R/o C-4, M.I.D.C. Butibori, Nagpur, P.S. Butibori, District- Nagpur, Maharashtra (Lodged In Jail Since 23.04.2026 At Central Jail Raipur) Above are Represented by Himanshu Jain (Aged 27 Years), S/o Hemant Jain (Applicant No. 2) Who is Lodged in Jail Since 23.04.2026. ...Petitioners/Applicants versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ratanam Industries Through Proprietor M. Chalpati Rao S/o M. Apparao, R/o HIG- 18, Maruti Enclave, Tatibandh, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-Title Taken From Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate. For Respondent No.1/State : Ms. Swati R. Gupta, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) Order on Board 11/05/2026 AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.05.12 17:34:19 +0530 2 Heard on admission. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS, read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘N.I. Act’) seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in view of the Deed of Settlement dated 25.04.2026 executed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 143/2012. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after the arrest of Applicant No. 2 – Hemant Jain, pursuant to the dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024, the parties have entered into a compromise on 25.04.2026 (Annexure A-4), and the entire amount along with costs has been paid to Respondent No. 2/complainant. It is further submitted that the present case relates to the N.I. Act, which is quasi-civil in nature, and therefore, the said compromise ought to be accepted by this Court. Thus, the offence deserves to be compounded in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Section 147 of the N.I. Act. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions in K. Balachenniappan vs. Jeyakrishnan (CRL.R.C.(MD) No. 875/2025, decided on 19.09.2025); Raj Reddy Kallem vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2210 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 629 of 2023 vide judgment dated 08.04.2024 [2024 INSC 347]) and Virender Singh Dongwal vs. Manju Aggarwal (Criminal Appeal No. 5060 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 18429 of 2025 vide judgment dated 18.11.2025). 3. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/complainant does not oppose the prayer for compounding of the said offence. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, C.G., in Criminal Complaint Case No.143/2012, vide judgment dated 06.05.2014, convicted Applicant No. 2 – Hemant Jain for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Further, under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., the applicant and his company were directed to pay Rs.28,00,000/- to the complainant institution, and in default of payment, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. The said judgment was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No. 137/2014 vide judgment dated 07.01.2015. Thereafter, applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2015 which was dismissed on merits by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024, recording a categorical finding that no illegality or infirmity exists in the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Co-ordinate Bench further observed that despite repeated opportunities, and even reference of the matter to the Mediation Centre, the applicants failed to settle the dispute and failed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. Thus, the issue relating to conviction of the applicant No.2- Hemant Jain under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has already attained finality after adjudication on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Once the criminal revision No.111 of 2015 has been finally decided affirming the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 12.08.2024, no further proceeding survives before this Court to reconsider the very same issue indirectly in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 4 Cr.P.C./Section 528 of BNSS on the basis of a subsequent compromise. 7. The inherent powers of this Court cannot be exercised in a manner so as to virtually review or nullify a final judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Entertaining such petitions after dismissal of revision on merits would amount to permitting abuse and misuse of the process of law. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of Hari Singh Mann vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others reported in (2001) 1 SCC 169 has held in paras 9 & 10 which read as under:- ““9.There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code. This Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala reported in AIR 1979 SC 87 held (SCC p. 315, para 20):- “20.Before concluding we will very briefly refer to cases of this Court cited by counsel on both sides. Talab Haji Hussain vs Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, 1958 SCR 1226: AIR 1958 SC 376 relates to the power of the High Court to cancel bail. The High Court took the view that under Section 561A of the Code, it had inherent power to cancel the bail, and finding that on the material produced before the Court it would not be safe to permit the appellant to be at large cancelled the bail, distinguishing the decision in Lala Jairam Das v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 94 and stated that the Privy Council was not called upon to consider the question about the inherent power of the High Court to cancel bail under Section 561A. In Sankatha Singh vs. State of U.P., 1962 Supp (2) SCR 817, this Court held that Section 369 read with Section 424 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically prohibits the altering or reviewing of its order by a court. The accused applied before a succeeding Sessions Judge for re-hearing of an appeal. The learned Judge was of the view that the appellate court had no power to review or restore an appeal which has been disposed of. The Supreme Court agreed with the view that the appellate Court had no power to review or restore an appeal. This Court, expressing its opinion that the Sessions Court had no power to review or restore an appeal observed that a judgment, which does 5 not comply with the requirements of Section 367 of the Code, may be liable to be set aside by a superior court but will not give the appellate court any power to set it aside itself and re-hear the appeal observing that "Section 369 read with Section 424 of the Code makes it clear that the appellate court is not to alter or review the judgment once signed, except for the purpose of correcting a clerical error.” Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. V. Mohan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 1002 by Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent wherein it was held that rejection of a prior application for quashing is no bar for the High Court entertaining a subsequent application as quashing does not amount to review or revision. This decision instead of supporting the respondent clearly lays down, following Chopra's case (U.J.S. Chopra vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 633) that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. This Court entertained the application for quashing the proceedings on the ground that a subsequent application to quash would not amount to review or revise an order made by the Court. The decision clearly lays down that a judgment of the High Court on appeal or revision cannot be reviewed or revised except in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions of Section 561A of the Code cannot be invoked for exercise of a power which is specifically prohibited by the Code." 10. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. The Section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a Court, the said Court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The Court becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. The reliance of the respondent on Talab Haji Hussain’s case (supra) is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that inherent powers conferred on High Courts under Section 561A (Section 482 of the new Code) has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed 6 under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7.1.1999. The new Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st Report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment.”” 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that once a judgment has been finally passed, this Court cannot review or change it by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the conviction of Applicant No. 2- Hemant Jain has already been upheld and has attained finality, the present petition based on a subsequent compromise is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicants and the principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the aforesaid judgments, being distinguishable on facts, are of no help to the counsel for the applicants. 11. Consequently, the present Cr.M.P., being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 12. Considering the manner in which the present petition has been filed even after final adjudication of the criminal revision on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) is imposed upon the applicants, which shall be deposited before the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of 60 days from today. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Akhilesh