High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sandeep Sharma vs Vinod Bhargava on 21 May, 2010

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Sharma vs Vinod Bhargava on 21 May, 2010
                         Cr.R. No.356/2010
21.5.2010

Shri Manish Datt and Ankit Saxena, Advocates for the

applicant.

      Shri      Ravi      Chauhan,       Advocate    for    non-

applicant/complainant.

Applicant/accused-Sandeep Sharma and non-applicant/

complainant-Vinod Bhargava are present in the Court.

Heard on I.A. No.6043/3010 and I.A. No.6045/2010,

applications under Section 147, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

for permission for compounding the offence punishable under

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial Court on the basis of

evidence adduced by the complainant, convicted the accused

and ordered him to pay compensation.

Applicant has been convicted by the trial Court under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with a direction

to undergo six months RI and also directed the applicant to pay

Rs.1,50,000/- to the non-applicant/complainant.

Non-applicant/complainant made a statement that he has

received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as awarded by the Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bhopal vide judgment and order dated

14/7/2009.

Learned counsel for the parties submits that during

pendency of this criminal revision, the matter has been amicably

settled between the parties and in compliance to the order dated

14/7/2009 passed by the trial Court, compensation amounting to

Rs.1,50,000/- has been received by the non-
applicant/complainant today. They further submits that non-

applicant/complainant has received Rs.75,000/- vide demand

draft No.1616 dated 20th May, 2010 and Rs.75,000/- vide cheque

No.6332 dated 20th May, 2010 of ICICI bank and Rs.3500/- is

lying in CCD of concerned trial Court which will be withdrawn by

the non-applicant/complainant.

Learned counsel for the non-applicant/complainant

submits that now non-applicant/complainant do not wish to

prosecute the matter further against the applicant.

In Cranex Ltd. V. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd., 2000(7) SCC

388, a settlement had been entered between the parties during

the pendency of appeal in the Sessions Court against an order of

conviction and sentence recorded by the Magistrate under

Section 138 of the Act. The Apex Court directed the appellate

Court to consider the settlement and to take appropriate action in

accordance with law. The fact as to compromise between the

parties and payment of dues under Section 138 of the Act was

considered a relevant fact and compounding was allowed by the

Apex Court in the case of Kishore Kumar V. J.K. Corporation

Ltd., (2004) 13 SCC 494.

Taking into consideration the provision of Section 147 and

the primary object underlying Section 138, there is no reason to

refuse the compromise between the parties.

Considering the fact that matter has been settled and the

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid by the applicant as full
and final settlement and non-applicant/complainant has no

objection to allow the application and acquit the applicant of the

offence with which he was charged and convicted by the Court

below, for the foregoing reasons, I.A. No.6043/3010 and I.A.

No.6045/2010 are allowed. Parties are permitted to compound

the offence under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In

view of the compromise arrived at between both the parties,

the conviction of the applicant under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 is set aside and the applicant is

acquitted from the said charge. He is on bail, his bail bonds are

hereby discharged.

With the aforesaid, the criminal revision is allowed and

disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(P.K. JAISWAL)
JUDGE