Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 94 (MP)

Manmohan Yadav v. Surendra Sahu

2023-01-18

RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA

body2023
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No. 24844/2022 which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay which is supported by an affidavit of the brother of the applicant. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not aware about the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 because of pandemic COVID-19 and when it comes to the knowledge of the applicant, he immediately move this Criminal Revision. 3. On consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the ground mentioned in the application, the same (I.A. No. 24844/2022) is allowed. Delay in filing this Criminal Revision is here by condoned. 4. Also heard on I.A. No. 1472/2023 which is an application for compromise under Section 145 of N.I. Act and under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. 5. Instant Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal District Bhopal in CRA No. 359/2019, affirming the judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 2431/2018, whereby the learned court below has convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 1,71,385/- as compensation and Rs.9,500/- in accordance with Section 359 of Cr.P.C. After conviction, petitioner surrender before the trial Court and since then he is in judicial custody. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties of the case have entered into out of court settlement, whereby they have agreed on an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- which has already been paid by the petitioner to the respondent in lieu of the total compensation amount of Rs.1,81,000/- alongwith interest. A registered compromise deed dated 10.01.2023 has also been filed. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by putting the petitioner behind bar. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that, the parties have entered into settlement. A compromise deed dated 10.01.2023 has been executed between the parties and as per the compromise, respondent has already received Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner. 8. Since, the parties of the case have entered into settlement and a compromised deed dated 10.01.2023 has also been filed before this Court. 9. A compromise deed dated 10.01.2023 has been executed between the parties and as per the compromise, respondent has already received Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner. 8. Since, the parties of the case have entered into settlement and a compromised deed dated 10.01.2023 has also been filed before this Court. 9. On due consideration, and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that parties of the case have entered into compromise and the respondent has already been received the compensation amount, no useful purpose would be served to keep the accused behind the bar. 10. Since, the offence has been compounded by the respondent with the petitioner, therefore, this Criminal Revision is allowed and judgment dated 23.01.2020 passed in CRA No. 359/2019 is hereby set aside. Petitioner is acquitted from the charges of Section 138 of N.I. Act on the basis of compromise dated 10.01.2023. He may be released from the judicial custody, if not required in any other case. 11. All the pending interlocutory applications be disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance.