Allahabad High Court
Jagdeesh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:137386 Court No. - 75 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 29362 of 2025 Applicant :- Jagdeesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Piyush Dubey,G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Short counter affidavit along with Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Piyush Dubey, on behalf of opposite party no.2, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State and Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
3. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and application be decided on the basis of the documents available on the record. With the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1. Amroha in which applicant convicted for 6 month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.6 lac and order dated 04.07.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC-1st, Amroha in which confirmed the order dated 22.07.2024 in pursuance thereof Complaint case No.504 of 2023, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Naugawan Sadat, District Amroha.
5. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 under section 138 N.I.Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of the liability, the applicant herein had drawn two cheques bearing no.10401 and 10402 dated 4.6.2020 of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 1,50,000/- respectively which on presentation in the bank on 4.6.2020 came to be dishonoured on 5.6.2020 with the remark insufficient funds. Thereafter, on the assurance of the applicant, the cheques were represented on 15.6.2020 which came to be dishonoured on 16.6.2020 and again on representation on 7.8.2020 and 10.8.2020 a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 17.8.2020 followed by a complaint on 2.9.2020. The applicant came to be summoned by the court below and by virtue of the order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1 at Amroha in Complaint Case no. 504 of 2023, Jaydev Singh vs. Jagdish, the applicant came to be convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with a sentence of simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.5,90,000 to the complainant and plus Rs.10,000 to the State).
6. Assailing the order dated 22.7.2024 convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, in Complaint Case No. 504 of 2023, a Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2024, Jagdish v. State came to be preferred by the applicant which came to be dismissed by the Court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.-1 Amroha on 4.7.2025.
7. Thereafter, the applicant and the opposite party, no.2 entered into compromise, Annexure 4 at page 46 of the paper book, dated 24.7.2025, reference whereof has been made in para 7 of the application whereby it has been stated that both the parties have entered into a compromise whereby the amount which is to be paid by the applicant to opposite party no.2, complainant is Rs.5,00,000/- out of which Rs.3,80,000/- have been transferred online by the applicant in in favour of the opposite party no.2 in the bank account and with respect to Rs.1,20,000/- it is deposited pursuant to the order passed by the court and thus now nothing remains to be further proceeded and the order of the conviction be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has thus submitted that once the parties have entered into compromise, though post conviction and dismissal of an appeal against the same, then to this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS can always set aside the conviction on the basis of the compromise so entered into between the parties.
9. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Hon. Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah; B Vamsi Krishna Vs. State of Telangana & another 2023 LawSuit (SC) 83, coordinate bench of this court in Rishi Mohan Srivastava vs. State of U.P. & another U/S 482/378/407 No.516 of 2021 decided on 13.8.2021 and Application U/S 482 No. 2491 of 2024, Ravindra Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & another decided on 27.5.2024. It is thus prayed that the conviction order as well as the order passed in the appeal upholding the conviction order be set aside and the applicant be acquitted on account of compounding of the offences.
10. Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the basis of the averments made in the short counter affidavit has sought to argue that a compromise deed has been prepared/signed on 24.7.2025 and has no objection if the conviction order dated 22.7.2024 and the appellate order dated 4.7.2025 be set aside.
11. Learned AGA has no objection to the same.
12. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.
13. Apparently, with respect to the dishonour of two cheques of Rs.3 lac and Rs.1,50,000/- bearing no. 10401 and 10402 on 4.6.2020, on 5.6.2020, 7.8.2020 & 10.8.2020 a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 17.8.2020 followed by a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 2.9.2020. Thereafter the applicant came to be convicted In Warrant or Summons Criminal Case No. 5547 of 2020, Complaint Case No. 504 of 2023, Jaydev Singh vs. Jagdish by the Court of 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Amroha while convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act while sentencing him for simple imprisonment of six months and compensation/fine to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Assailing the same a criminal appeal came to be preferred by the applicant being criminal appeal no. 77 of 2024 which came to be rejected on 4.7.2025.
14. Further, as per the own saying of the parties, a compromise stood interred into between the parties on 24.7.2025 out of the court a copy whereof is Annexure-4 at page 46 of the paper book, reference whereof has been made in para 7 of the application. The terms of the compromise, dated 24.7.2025, are as under:-
“समझौतानामा
जयदेव सिंह पुत्र शीर लाल सिंह उम्र लगभग 52 वर्ष निवासी ग्राम गुलडिया थाना नौगावा सादात जनपद अमरोहा। …प्रथम पक्ष
जगदीश पुत्र मंगल सिंह उम्र लगभग 50 वर्ष निवासी ग्राम हमीदपुरा थाना
…. द्वितीय पक्ष
यह कि उपरोक्त दोनों पक्षों में समजौता हो गया है जिसकी शर्तें निम्नलिखित हैंः-
1. यह कि प्रथम पक्ष माननीय न्यायालय में योजित परिवाद सं०-504/2023, धारा 138 एन०आई० एक्ट, जगदेव बनाम जगदीश, थाना नौगांवा सादात में परिवादी है तथा द्वितीय पक्ष अभियुक्त है।
2. यह कि दोनों पक्षों आपसी सहमति से 5,00,000/- (पांच लाख) रुपये अदा करने की बात तय हुी थी। जो द्वितीय पक्ष ने प्रथम पक्ष को अदा कर दिये हैं।
3. यह कि द्वितीय पक्ष ने प्रथम पक्ष को 3,80,000/- रुपये बैंक खाते में ट्रान्सफर कर दिये हैं तथा 1,20,000/- रुपये द्वितीय पक्ष ने सत्र न्यायालय में जमा कर चुका है। जिसको प्रथम पक्ष अपने पक्ष में माननीय न्यायालय से उक्त धनराशि 1,20,000/- रुपये को अवमुक्त करा लेगा। जिस पर द्वितीय पक्ष को कोई आपत्ति नहीं है।
4. यह कि इस प्रकार द्वितीय पक्ष ने प्रथम पक्ष को 1,20,000/- रुपये 3,80,000/- रुपये कुल 5,00,000/- (पांच लाख) रुपये अदा कर दिये हैं।
5. यह कि प्रथम पक्ष की द्वितीय पक्ष पर कोई धनराशि शेष नहीं है तथा दोनों पक्ष आपसी सहमति/समझौते के आधार पर अपना उक्त वाद समाप्त कराना चाहते हैं।
6. यह कि उक्त परिवाद में द्वितीय पक्ष को 06 माह का कारावास की सजा हुई है उसे रद्द करने में प्रथम पक्ष को कोी आपत्ति नहीं है।
7. यह कि अब प्रथम पक्ष द्वितीय पक्ष के विरुद्ध कोई कार्यवाही नहीं चाहता है तथा अपने परिवाद में पारित निर्णय दिनांक 22.07.2024 को अपास्त कराना चाहता है।
8. यह कि दोनों पक्षों ने आपसी सहमति से यह समझौतानामा तहरीर कर दिया है ताकि सनद रहे और उक्त जरूरत काम आवे।”
15. The factum of the entering of compromise stands admitted to the opposite party no.2 as a short counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no.2, sworn on 3.8.2025 by the complainant opposite party no. 2, Jaydev Singh in which in para 5, it has been averred as under:-
“That on 24.7.2025 a compromise was done between the applicant and opposite party no.2 and a compromise deed was prepared on 24.7.2025 and as per compromise Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the opposite party no.2 by the applicant and it is also mentioned in the compromise he has no objection if conviction order dated 22.7.2024 and appellate order dated 4.7.2025 quashed.”
16. Once the position being so the next question which would arise for consideration is whether in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS, the courts can annul the conviction and the appellate order or not.
17. The Hon. Apex Court in B.V. Seshaiah (supra) had the occasion to consider the said aspect it has observed as under:-
7. It is also to be noted that as per the terms of the agreement, the Respondent No.2 was bound to file a compromise petition before the High Court, however he failed to do so. The lack of filing of such a compromise petition, as agreed upon by the Respondent No.2, has now led to the High Court dismissing the Revision and confirming the Conviction of the Appellants.
8. In our view, the terms and conditions of the settlement entered into by the parties binds them to settle the dispute amicably, or through an arbitration as has been stated in clause 8 of the Memorandum Of Understanding.
9. In such a circumstance, the Appellants cannot be convicted on the basis of the orders passed by the courts below, as the settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence.
10. In the case of M/S Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Kanchan Mehta, 2018 1 SCC 560, this court held that the nature of offence under Section 138 of the N.I Act is primarily related to a civil wrong and has been specifically 1 2018 (1) SCC 560 made a compoundable offence. The relevant paragraph of the judgment has been extracted herein:
“This Court has noted that the object of the statute was to facilitate smooth functioning of business transactions. The provision is necessary as in many transactions’ cheques were issued merely as a device to defraud the creditors. Dishonor of cheque causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the Vide the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 payee and credibility of business transactions suffers a setback. At the same time, it was also noted that nature of offence under section 138 primarily related to a civil wrong and the 2002 amendment specifically made it compoundable.”
11. This is a very clear case of the parties entering into an agreement and compounding the offence to save themselves from the process of litigation. When such a step has been taken by the parties, and the law very clearly allows them to do the same, the High Court then cannot override such compounding and impose its will.
12. It must also be noted that the Respondent No.2 was duty bound to file a compromise petition before the High Court, and by not doing the same has withdrawn key information from the High Court, which has led to an unwarranted confirmation of the Appellants’ conviction.
13. We, therefore, allow these Appeals and set aside the order of conviction passed by the trial court. It is, however, kept open to the parties to settle their dispute as per the terms of the Memorandum Of Understanding.
18. Further, in Rishi Mohan Sirvastav (supra), the following was observed as under:-
27. In reference to offence under section 138 of N.I. Act read with section 147 of the said Act, the parties are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the revision application. Even a convict undergoing imprisonment with the liability to pay the amount of fine imposed by the court and/or under an obligation to pay the amount of compensation if awarded, as per the scheme of N.I. Act, can compound the matter. The complainant i.e. person or persons affected can pray to the court that the accused, on compounding of the offence may be released by invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 482 Cr.P.C. If the parties are asked to approach the Apex Court then, what will be situation, is a question which is required to be considered in the background of another accepted progressive and pragmatic principle accepted by our courts that if possible, the parties should be provided justice at the door step. The phrase “justice at the door step” has taken the court to think and reach to a conclusion that it can be considered and looked into as one of such special circumstances for the purpose of compounding the offence under section 147 of the N. I. Act.
29. Merely because the litigation has reached to a revisional stage or that even beyond that stage, the nature and character of the offence would not change automatically and it would be wrong to hold that at revisional stage, the nature of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be treated as if the same is falling under table-II of Section 320 IPC. I would like to reproduce some part of the statement of objects and reasons of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 :
“The Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 was amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 wherein a new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. These provisions were incorporated with a view to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing the credibility of the instrument. The existing provisions in the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981, namely Section 138 to 142 in Chapter XVII have been found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. Not only the punishment provided in the Act has proved to be inadequate, the procedure prescribed for the courts to deal with such matters has been found to be cumbersome. The Courts are unable to dispose of such cases expeditiously in a time bound manner in view of the procedure contained in the Act.
2. A large number of cases are reported to be pending under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the said Act, pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to review Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 181 and make recommendations as to what changes were needed to effectively achieve the purpose of that Section.
3. ………….
4. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Standing Committee on finance and other R/SCR.A/2491/2018 ORDER representations, it has been decided to bring out, inter alia the following amendments in the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881, namely.
(i) xxxxxx
(ii) xxxxxx
(iii) xxxxxx
(iv) to prescribe procedure for dispensing with preliminary evidence of the complainant.
(v) xxxxxx
(vi) xxxxx
(vii) to make the offences under the Act compoundable. ……..
5. xxxxxx
6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.
31. It is quite obvious that with respect to the offence of dishonour of cheques, it is the compensatory aspect of the remedy which should be given priority over the punitive aspect.
32. So the intention of the legislature and object of enacting “Banking”, Public Financial Institutions and the Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amended Act) 1988 and subsequent enactment, 1.e., Negotiable Instruments (Amendment & Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2002 leads this Court to a conclusion that the offence made punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not only an offence qua property but it is also of the nature of an economic offence, though not covered in the list of statutes enacted in reference to Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Thus, the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 N.I. Act read with Section 147 of the said Act are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the application.
33. In the instant case, the problem herein is with the tendency of litigants to belatedly choose compounding as a means to resolve their dispute, furthermore, the arguments on behalf of the opposite parties on the fact that unlike Section 320 Cr.P.C., Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides no explicit guidance as to what stage compounding can or cannot be done and whether compounding can be done at the instance of the complainant or with the leave of the court.
34. I am also conscious of the view that judicial endorsement of the above quoted guidelines as given in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) 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. I have already explained that the scheme contemplated under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be followed in the strict sense.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 N.I. Act read with Section 147 of the said Act are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage. The complainant i.e. the person or persons affected can pray to the court that the accused, on compounding of the offence may be released by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
36. Generally, the powers available under Section 482 of the Code would not have been exercised when a statutory remedy under the law is available, however considering the peculiar set of facts and circumstances it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the parties to appellate court. Additionally when both the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and there is no bar on exercise of powers and the inherent powers of this court can always be invoked for imparting justice and bringing a quietus to the issue between the parties.”
19. Further, in Ravindra Kumar Yadav (supra), it was observed as under:- para 27, 28, 29, 45, 46, 47,48.
27. In the instant case, it is true that this Court had dismissed the criminal revision and upheld the conviction and sentence passed by the court below but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that this Court has the power to intervene in exercise of the powers vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. only with a view to do the substantial justice or to avoid miscarriage and the spirit of the compromise arrived at between the parties. This is perfectly justified and legal too.
28. I have considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as by the learned Counsel for the State and other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and I do not think it necessary to enlist those decisions which are taken into consideration for the purpose of the present proceedings.
29. In the instant case, the applicant is invoking the inherent power as vested under section 482 Cr.P.C. after the dismissal of the revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C. In this circumstances, I have to examine the maintainability of the present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and also to examine as to whether for entertaining the aforesaid application, any special circumstances are made out or not. The gist of the ratio is reflected in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and Others; AIR 2001 SC 3524. In that case, it was contended before the Apex Court that as per the earlier revision filed by the accused persons under section 397 of the Code has been rejected by the High Court vide order dated 13.05.1990, they had no right to file the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer for quashing the same order. While dealing with the above contention, the Apex Court observed as under:-
“We are of the opinion that no special circumstances were spelt out in the subsequent application for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 of the Code and the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.”
So it can be legitimately argued and inferred and held that in all cases where the applicants are able to satisfy this court that there are special circumstances which can be clearly spelt out, subsequent application invoking inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be moved and cannot be thrown away on the technical argument as to its sustainability.
45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 N.I. Act read with Section 147 of the said Act are at liberty to compound the matter at any stage. The complainant i.e. the person or persons affected can pray to the court that the accused, on compounding of the offence may be released by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with article 226 of the Constitution of India.
46. Generally, the powers available under Section 482 of the Code would not have been exercised when a statutory remedy under the law is available, however, considering the peculiar set of facts and circumstances it would not be in the interest of justice to relegate the parties to appellate court. Additionally when both the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and there is no bar on exercise of powers and the inherent powers of this court can always be invoked for imparting justice and bringing a quietus to the issue between the parties.
47. As discussed above, the court is inclined to hold accordingly only because there is no formal embargo in Section 147 of the N.I. Act. This principle would not help any convict in any other law where other applicable independent provisions are existing as the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is distinctly different from the normal offences made punishable under Chapter XVII of IPC (i.e. the offences qua property).
48. In view of the observations and in view of the guidelines as laid down in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra) and also in view of the observations made in the judgment referred and taking into account the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably by way of compromise, this Court is of the view that the compounding of the offence as required to be permitted.
20. Accordingly, the present application under Section 528 BNSS is allowed in terms of the compromise arrived between the parties to the litigation out of the court on 24.7.2025. The impugned judgment and the order dated by 22.7.2024 passed by 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Amroha, In Warrant or Summons Criminal Case No. 5547 of 2020, Complaint Case No. 504 of 2013, Jaydev Singh vs. Jagdish convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act sentencing for imprisonment of six months and directing for payment of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation as upheld in Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2014, Jagdish vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and others by the court dated 4.7.2025 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 1, Amroha are hereby annulled and modified to the extent that the applicant shall be treated as acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the complainant in pursuance of the compromise so entered into between them on 24.7.2025.
21. The learned trial court is directed that in case any amount stands deposited with the trial court which remains to be paid to the opposite party no.2 complainant, by the applicant the parties are at liberty to file appropriate application/proceedings for release of the same.
Order Date :- 12.8.2025
piyush