Sultan vs Pankaj

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31443
1 CRR-2109-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2109 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020196332026
SULTAN
Versus
PANKAJ
Appearance:
Ms. Mansi Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
The present Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of
the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by the judgment
nd
dated 18.04.2026 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth, District -
Mandsaur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2025, whereby the appeal has been
dismissed and the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Garoth in SCNIA/112/2022 convicting the applicant under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act along with fine of Rs.7,94,605/- has been
affirmed.
02. Since the parties have settled their dispute amicably and arrived at a
compromise, therefore, vide order dated 14.10.2026, this Court directed the
parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Bench for the purpose of
verification of compromise.
03. In compliance thereto, the Principal Registrar has verified the factum
of compromise and submitted his satisfaction report stating that the applicant /
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-11-2026
18:06:33

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31443
2 CRR-2109-2026
respondent arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement or

coercion. They have amicably resolved their disputes.
04. Since the parties have entered into compromise at the stage of
revision, therefore, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu
v/s Sayed Babalal H. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 will be applicable in this
case. The Apex Court in paragraph- 21 of the said judgement has issued the
following guidelines:-
“21. With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing
cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame
guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who
unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the
requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed
composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at
any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the
cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for
compounding made after several years not only results in the system
being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective
justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following
guidelines be followed:-
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably
modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an
application for compounding of the offences at the first or second
hearing of the case and that if such an application is made,
compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs
on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as
aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the
Magistrate at a subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject
to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the
cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with
the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made Criminal
Revision No.3198/2021 before the Sessions Court or a High Court in
revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition
that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the
Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque
amount.”
05. Further in paragraphs-24, 25 and 26 of the said judgement, the Apex
Court has observed as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-11-2026
18:06:33

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31443
3 CRR-2109-2026
"24. We are also conscious of the view that the judicial endorsement of
the above quoted guidelines could be seen as an act of judicial law-
making and therefore an intrusion into the legislative domain. It must
be kept in mind that Section 147 of the Act does not carry any guidance
on how to proceed with the compounding of offences under the Act.
We have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section
320 of the CrPC cannot be followed in the strict sense. In view of the
legislative vacuum, we see no hurdle to the endorsement of some
suggestions which have been designed to discourage litigants from
unduly delaying the composition of the offence in cases involving
Section 138 of the Act.
25. The graded scheme for imposing costs is a means to encourage
compounding at an early stage of litigation. In the status quo, valuable
time of the Court is spent on the trial of these cases and the parties are
not liable to pay any Court fee since the proceedings are governed by
the Code of Criminal Procedure, even though the impact of the offence
is largely confined to the private parties. Even though the imposition of
costs by the competent court is a matter of discretion, the scale of costs
has been suggested in the interest of uniformity. The competent Court
can of course reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and
circumstances of a case, while recording reasons in writing for such
variance. Bona fide litigants should of course contest the proceedings
to their logical end.
26. Even in the past, this Court has used its power to do complete
justice under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame guidelines in
relation to subject-matter where there was a legislative vacuum."
06. In the present case, the parties have amicably settled their dispute and
the compromise has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court.
The petitioner has also paid the entire settled amount to the
respondent/complainant.
07. In view of the aforesaid judgement and considering the fact that the
dispute is purely private in nature and the parties have voluntarily settled the
matter and expressed their desire to put an end to the litigation, this Court is of the
view that the compromise application deserves to be accepted and is hereby
allowed. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The judgments passed
by the Courts below are hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted from the
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-11-2026
18:06:33

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31443
4 CRR-2109-2026
08. However, having regard to the stage at which the compromise has

been entered into, and in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the applicant is directed to deposit a sum equivalent
to 1% of the cheque amount, i.e. Rs.6,620/- (Rupees Six Thousand Six Hundred
Twenty Only), as costs with the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority,
Indore, within a period of 15 days from today.
09. The applicant is presently on bail. His bail bonds shall stand
discharged, subject to compliance with the direction as mentioned above.
10. In case, the applicant fails to deposit the aforesaid amount of
Rs.6,620/- with the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority, Indore within
the stipulated period, the order of acquittal passed on the basis of compromise
shall not enure to his benefit and he shall be liable to undergo the sentence
awarded by the Trial Court, in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid, Criminal Revision stands disposed of.
12. Pending I.A. (if any) stands disposed of.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
Ravi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 04-11-2026
18:06:33