Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4580 (ALL)

Mukesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2026-03-25

Manoj Bajaj

body2026
JUDGMENT : MANOJ BAJAJ, J. In Ref: Criminal Misc. Exemption Application. The revision petition has been reported to be defective on account of non filing of certified copy of the judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. The petitioner is exempted to file certified copy of the order dated 19.12.2024. 4. Office to allot regular number to the present revision petition. (Order on Revision Petition) 5. Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2025, titled Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed by Special Court, 138 N.I. Act, Agra in Criminal Complaint Case No. 501 of 2019, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, has been upheld. The sentence of six months simple imprisonment alongwith compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- imposed upon the accused-petitioner by the trial court has also been affirmed. 6. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant namely, M/s R.S. Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. through partner Vinod Kumar Upadhyay brought a criminal complaint bearing no. 501 of 2019 against Mukesh Kumar- petitioner with the allegations that the complainant is running a cold storage and keeps potato and the petitioner had been purchasing potato from the complainant for a long time, who had been making payments from time to time. The accused-petitioner purchased potato worth Rs.17,68,956/- between 8.8.2027 to 20.11.2027 and against this a payment of Rs.11,12,000/- was made to the complainant, whereas a sum of Rs.6,56,956/- remained as outstanding amount. On demand of the balance amount by complainant, the accused-petitioner assured that it would be cleared soon and on 28.9.2018 he issued a cheque bearing no.592451 amounting to Rs.6,10,000/-, but on presentation on 1.10.2018 by the complainant in his account bearing Account No.4018201000014, the same was dishonored on 3.10.2018 on account of "insufficient funds". On demand of the balance amount by complainant, the accused-petitioner assured that it would be cleared soon and on 28.9.2018 he issued a cheque bearing no.592451 amounting to Rs.6,10,000/-, but on presentation on 1.10.2018 by the complainant in his account bearing Account No.4018201000014, the same was dishonored on 3.10.2018 on account of "insufficient funds". Upon an assurance given by accused- petitioner, the said cheque was again presented on 14.11.2018, but again on 15.11.2018 it was dishonored, whereupon a demand notice dated 12.12.2018 was sent to the accused-petitioner through registered post, which was served upon him on 18.12.2018, but despite that the debt was not cleared by the accused-petitioner, therefore, the subject complaint was filed on 11.1.2019. 7. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, the accused was summoned and finally the trial ended in conviction of the accused-petitioner vide judgment dated 19.12.2024 and on the same day, the sentence of six months simple imprisonment alongwith compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- was imposed upon the convict-petitioner and further, it was ordered that out of it, Rs.7,40,000/- be paid to the complainant as compensation, whereas remaining amount of Rs.16,400/- was ordered to be deposited with the treasury as fine. In the event of non deposit of the amount, the same was ordered be recovered from the property of the accused-petitioner. 8. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2024, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2025 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Agra and through the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2025 the same was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Annexure No.5 to contend that after the judgment dated 10.9.2025 passed by appellate court, the parties have amicably settled the dispute and a written compromise has been executed. While referring to the compromise, learned counsel has pointed out that as per the agreement between the parties, the accused-petitioner is to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant and on receiving the said amount, the complainant shall have no grievance against the petitioner-convict, who has consented for compounding the offence. Learned counsel states that during the pendency of the appeal, a sum of Rs.75,640/- already stood deposited by the petitioner-convict before the appellate court and another sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant by way of RTGS bearing no. UBINH25259395905. 10. Learned counsel states that during the pendency of the appeal, a sum of Rs.75,640/- already stood deposited by the petitioner-convict before the appellate court and another sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant by way of RTGS bearing no. UBINH25259395905. 10. Besides, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the complainant in cash, therefore, the agreed amount of Rs.5 lacs has been received by the complainant. Learned counsel prays that in view of the subsequent development of compromise between the parties, the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence and the impugned judgments passed by the trial court and the appellate court be set aside. 11. The complainant-opposite party no.2 is represented by Mr. Gyan Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate who in response to the stand of the petitioner has fairly stated that the agreed amount of Rs.5 lacs stands received by the complainant and the compromise dated 16.9.2025 is signed by Vinod Kumar Upadhayay, representative of the company M/s R.S. Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd., and he further states that the complainant has no objection, if, the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is allowed to be compounded, and the impugned judgments of conviction passed by both the courts are set aside. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that according to the complainant itself, the accused-petitioner was engaged in business transactions with the complainant's company for a long time and he had been making payments from time to time to clear the dues. The dispute arose when the material worth Rs.17,68,956/- was purchased by the accused-petitioner, but against that an amount of Rs.6,56,956/- remained outstanding, after making a payment of Rs.11,12,000/- in favour of complainant. Dishonor of cheque though is a penal offence, but the nature of the proceedings are alike a civil dispute and one of the aims and objects of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is to provide safeguards for mercantile transactions and to inject strength to the commercial/financial transactions. Thus, in such cases, the grievance of the complainant (drawee of the cheque) relates to the non clearance of debt by the accused, and if, the due money paid by the accused to the complainant, ordinarily the grievance is redressed. 13. Thus, in such cases, the grievance of the complainant (drawee of the cheque) relates to the non clearance of debt by the accused, and if, the due money paid by the accused to the complainant, ordinarily the grievance is redressed. 13. By virtue of amendment in Negotiable Instruments Act through Act No. 55 of 2002 under Section 147 was inserted, which contemplates that every offence punishable under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall be compoundable. Of course, compounding of an offence has to be on the basis of the consent by complainant and where such an agreement is arrived at between the accused and the complainant, ordinarily the courts permit compounding of offence. By now, it is also settled law that permission to compound the offence can be granted at any stage and even after conviction i.e. either at the stage of pendency of the appeal or revision, if, there is no other impediment to the compounding the offence. 14. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the old relations between the parties as well as the complainant's consent in favour of the accused-convict for agreeing to compound it, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting permission in this regard, as it may not only eliminate the bitterness between the parties, but would also restore peace in their relations. 15. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 10.9.2025 are hereby set aside and the criminal complaint is rendered inconsequential. 16. The revision petition is allowed.