The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently allowed a criminal revision and acquitted an accused convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, despite the offence being non-compoundable, after the parties reached an amicable settlement. This judgment reaffirms the court's discretion to acquit based on compromise, even in non-compoundable offences, provided the settlement is voluntary and free from coercion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ramnesh Kumar Raman, was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Waidhan, in SC NIA/248/2022 for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The trial court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months, along with a default stipulation and a compensation amount of Rs. 7,08,500. The petitioner appealed to the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Waidhan, which dismissed his appeal on 05.12.2025, affirming the trial court's judgment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was convicted for dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 NI Act in SC NIA/248/2022
- The trial court's judgment was dated 19.12.2023, convicting the petitioner and sentencing him to three months' simple imprisonment
- The petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 06/2024, which was dismissed on 05.12.2025
- During the pendency of the criminal revision before the High Court, the parties entered into a compromise
- The complainant, Seema Styarathi, filed an application under Section 359(2) and (6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, supported by affidavits
Procedural History
- 19.12.2023: Trial Court convicts petitioner under Section 138 NI Act and sentences him to three months' simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 7,08,500 (SC NIA/248/2022)
- 05.12.2025: 7th Additional Sessions Judge dismisses the appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 06/2024)
- 27.04.2026: High Court records compromise between parties and directs verification by Registrar J-II
- 04.05.2026: Registrar J-II verifies compromise and records statements of parties
- 04.05.2026: High Court allows criminal revision and acquits the petitioner
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought acquittal on the grounds of compromise, relying on the decision in Devendra Singh @ Bablu and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Revision No. 3618/2024). The petitioner also sought the disbursement of Rs. 1,77,125 deposited during the proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction under Section 138 NI Act, a non-compoundable offence, could be set aside on the basis of a compromise between the parties, particularly when the complainant voluntarily withdraws the allegations.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner argued that:
- The parties had entered into a voluntary compromise, as evidenced by the application under Section 359(2) and (6) BNSS, 2023 and supporting affidavits
- The complainant had stated that the compromise was entered into freely, without any threat or inducement
- The court had the discretion to acquit the petitioner in light of the compromise, even though Section 138 NI Act is non-compoundable
- Reliance was placed on the decision in Devendra Singh @ Bablu and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, where the High Court allowed acquittal on similar grounds
For the Respondent
The respondent did not contest the compromise, as the complainant had voluntarily agreed to settle the matter. The court noted the complainant's statement confirming the voluntary nature of the compromise.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the ratio laid down in Devendra Singh @ Bablu and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that even in non-compoundable offences, the court may acquit the accused if the parties reach a compromise, provided the settlement is voluntary and free from coercion. The court observed:
"Looking to the nature of allegations even in the non compoundable cases, the petitioner can be acquitted of the charges."
The court further noted:
- The incident occurred in 2019, and the petitioner had maintained a good record during the trial and appeal
- The complainant had voluntarily entered into the compromise, as verified by the Registrar J-II
- The petitioner had deposited Rs. 1,77,125 during the proceedings, which was directed to be disbursed to him
Based on these observations, the court exercised its discretion to allow the criminal revision and acquit the petitioner.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the criminal revision and set aside the judgments dated 05.12.2025 (7th Additional Sessions Judge) and 19.12.2023 (Judicial Magistrate First Class). The petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 NI Act. The bail bonds, if any, were discharged. The court also directed the disbursement of Rs. 1,77,125 deposited by the petitioner to be returned to him in accordance with the law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compromise Can Lead to Acquittal Even in Non-Compoundable Offences
- Courts may exercise discretion to acquit accused persons in non-compoundable offences if the parties reach a voluntary compromise
- The complainant's voluntary withdrawal of allegations, supported by affidavits, can be a strong ground for acquittal
- Practitioners should highlight the accused's clean record during trial and appeal to strengthen the case for acquittal based on compromise
Voluntariness of Compromise Is Key
- The court emphasized that the compromise must be entered into freely, without threat or inducement
- Verification by a judicial officer (e.g., Registrar) adds credibility to the compromise
- Applications under Section 359(2) and (6) BNSS, 2023 can be used to formalize the compromise
Precedent for Future Cases
- The judgment in Devendra Singh @ Bablu and Others vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh serves as a binding precedent for similar cases
- Lower courts may rely on this judgment to allow acquittals based on compromise, even in non-compoundable offences like Section 138 NI Act
