Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 37348 (CHH)

PANKAJ AGRAWAL v. VINAY PRADHAN

CRR/294/2021 · 2026-09-29

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010110352021 2026:CGHC:42636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 294 of 2021 Pankaj Agrawal S/o Bajrang Agrawal Aged About 34 Years R/o Village / Post Baloda Thana Chowki Baloda, Tehsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant Accused versus Vinay Pradhan S/o Ramlal Pradhan Caste Kolta, R/o Village Ranisagar Post Gadfuljhar Thana And Tehsil Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant Complainant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J Order on Board (30th September, 2026) The instant revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed challenging the judgment dated 27.2.2021 passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund in Criminal 2 Appeal No.21/2019 whereby appeal filed by the applicant/accused against the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, Distt. Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.125/2018, convicting him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “the NI Act”) and sentencing to undergo SI for one year and pay compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs u/s 357(3) of CrPC to the non-applicant/complainant with default sentence of three months’ SI, has been partly allowed. By the impugned judgment, the appellate Court while maintaining conviction of the applicant, reduced the sentence imposed by the trial Court to imprisonment till rising of the Court and the compensation amount of Rs.5 Lakhs was enhanced to Rs.5.60 Lakhs with default sentence of six months’ SI. 2. Facts, in brief, of the case are that the non-applicant/complainant filed a complaint before the trial Court against the applicant/accused alleging that owing to the cordial relationship between the complainant and the accused, the accused borrowed a total sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs in cash in installments from the complainant for his domestic expenses and business purposes and promised to repay the same within the stipulated period. However, when the accused failed to repay the amount, an agreement was executed between the parties on 07.01.2018 in respect of the said amount. Despite execution of the said agreement, when the accused failed to repay the amount, the complainant contacted him, whereupon the accused issued a cheque dated 21.02.2018 for Rs. 5 Lakhs bearing Cheque No. 000021, 3 towards repayment of the said amount. The complainant presented the said cheque for encashment before the State Bank, Basna Branch, but the cheque was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficient funds in the account of the drawer. Thereafter, the complainant, through his counsel, issued a legal notice dated 07.03.2018 to the accused by registered post, which was received by the accused on 08.03.2018. Despite receipt of the legal notice, the accused failed to repay the cheque amount to the complainant. Consequently, the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint before the trial Court against the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna vide judgment dated 28.11.2019 convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo SI for one year and pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs to the complainant under Section 357(3) of CrPC within two months after expiry of period of appeal and in default thereof, to suffer additional SI for three months. Being aggrieved, the applicant/accused filed an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.21/2019, which was partly allowed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge, Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund by the impugned judgment dated 27.2.2021 whereby while upholding conviction of the applicant, the sentence part has been modified as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this order. Hence this revision. 4. Both the parties are present in person along with their respective counsels before this Court today. The parties have jointly filed an 4 application (IA No.04/2026) under Section 359(6) read with Section 359(8) of BNSS, 2023, which is supported by their affidavits. The parties state that they have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court without any fear or pressure and are residing in the same village peacefully. The complainant states that there are no dues upon the applicant and he does not want any further prosecution against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid application may be allowed and consequently, the applicant be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act. Further, it is prayed that the amount, which has already been deposited i.e. Rs.1.40 Lakh in compliance of the order dated 10.8.2021 by the applicant, may be returned to him. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. 7. Considering the fact that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable in terms of Section 147 of the said Act and further considering the fact that the parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court, the statement of the complainant that he does not wish to prosecute the applicant any further, the compromise application (IA No.04/2026) is hereby allowed. Consequently, the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act stands compounded. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Basna, District Mahasamund in 5 Criminal Case No.125/2018, as affirmed/modified by the impugned judgment dated 27.02.2021 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Criminal Appeal No.21/2019, are hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act. 8. The amount of Rs.1,40,000/- deposited by the applicant in compliance with the order dated 10.08.2021 passed by this Court shall be returned to him upon due verification. The bail bond/surety of the applicant shall stand discharged. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/ (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.10.01 14:33:13 +0530