CGHC010342742026 2026:CGHC:39022 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1131 of 2026 • Smt. Santoshi Janghel W/o Shri Hitesh Kumar Jangde, Aged About 35 Years R/o 20 B.W. Type Central Township Dallirajhara Tahsil -Daundi, District Balod (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • Om Prakash Jain S/o Late Shri Nemichand Jain, Aged About 55 Years R/o New Market, Main Road Dallirajhara, Tahsil -Daundi, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vikas Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 03.09.2026 1. The applicant has filed the present criminal revision challenging the impugned order dated 25.08.2026 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 91/2025 whereby learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dallirajhara, District Balod in Criminal Case No. 1357 of 2023 wherein the applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 03 months and compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional S.I. for 01 month. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after conviction order passed by learned Sessions Judge in CRA No. 91 of 2025, the BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2026.09.03 15:21:59 +0530 applicant and respondent have entered into a compromise by way of an agreement dated 29.08.2026 (Annexure A/3). He would further submit that in view of agreement dated 29.08.2026, the applicant during pendency of the appeal the applicant has paid Rs. 70,000/- before the learned trial Court and remaining amount i.e. Rs. 2,80,000/- has been paid through cash on 29.08.2026, as such the total amount of cheque has already been honored to the respondent. He would further submit that since compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parsharvanath Weld Wires Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. in CRA No. 2904 of 2026 decided on 27th May, 2026 the complaint case can be disposed of. He would further submit that since the applicant has been arrested on 25.08.2026 itself, he is still in incarceration, therefore, he may be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed the said factual matrix in view of the fact that the applicant and respondent have already settled their inter se dispute. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Since the parties have already settled their dispute and the grievance of the complainant has been redressed by receiving the cheque amount, as such, the conviction of the applicant can be very well set- aside by this Court in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gian Chand Garg Vs. Harpal Singh and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2317 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. In B.V. Seshaiah v. State of Telangana & Anr. (2023) SCC OnLine SC 96 this court was of the view that when parties enter into an agreement and compound the offence, they do so to save themselves from the process of litigation and when such a step is taken by the parties, the law very well allows them to do so. Hence, the courts cannot override such compounding and impose its will. 10. Therefore, it is very clear that although dishonour of cheque entails criminal consequence, the legislature by virtue of section 147 of the NI Act has made it compoundable notwithstanding the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the same can be compounded at any stage of the proceedings especially when the parties have themselves arrived at a voluntary compromise. 11. In the present case, the compromise deed dated 06.04.2025 and the Affidavit on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 dated 16.04.2025 is annexed to the present petition as Annexure P3 and P6, respectively. Upon careful perusal of the recitals contained in the said documents, it clearly emerges that the Respondent No.1 in consideration of Two Demand Drafts bearing no(s). 004348 dated 04.04.2025 and 004303 dated 11.02.2025 for Rs. 2.5 lakhs each along with three cheques bearing no(s). 354412 dated 10.05.2025, 354413 dated 10.06.2025 and 354414 dated 10.07.2025 of Rs. 1 lakh each has arrived at a compromise with appellant without any coercion and at his own will and voluntarily. Once the complainant has signed the compromise deed accepting the amount in full and final settlement of the default sum the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act cannot hold water, therefore, the concurrent conviction rendered by the Courts below has to be set-aside. 12. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same stands Allowed and consequently the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 in CRR 2563 of 2025 is set aside and the order of conviction and sentence imposed on appellant is quashed." 6. Again, the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Parsharvanath Weld Wires Pvt Ltd & Anr. (supra) has taken the same view. 7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parsharvanath Weld Wires Pvt Ltd & Anr. (supra) and Gian Chand Garg (supra), I am of the view that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be set-aside and accordingly the order of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class is also quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. It is reported that in pursuance of order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, the applicant is in incarceration since 25.08.2026, he is directed to be released forthwith today itself on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika