Bombay High Court

RAMDAS S/O. HANUMAYYA MODIRAJversusASHOK S/O. LAXMANRAO GANJEWAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court held that a valid compounding of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act warrants setting aside the conviction and sentence.

Summary

The accused, Ramdas Hanumayya Modiraj, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and a compensation of Rs.3,36,000. Both the accused and the complainant later agreed to compound the offence, depositing the compensation amount with the court and permitting its withdrawal with interest. They filed a joint criminal application seeking permission to compound the offence and to have the conviction set aside. The High Court examined whether a criminal offence under Section 138 can be compounded and whether the earlier judgment can be vacated on that basis. Finding the compromise valid, the Court allowed the application, set aside the earlier judgments, and acquitted the accused. The complainant was authorized to withdraw the deposited amount with accrued interest.

Issues considered

Whether an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded by the parties.
Whether the conviction and sentence may be set aside upon valid compounding of the offence.

Legislation cited

Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138

Subjects

compounding of offences
Section 138 NI Act
criminal revision
acquittal
compensation
settlement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40382


                                              *1*                     1nob revn89o18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3098 OF 2026
                                         IN
                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2018
                                       WITH
                     CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.89 OF 2018

                            RAMDAS HANUMAYYA MODIRAJ
                                     VERSUS
                           ASHOK LAXUMANRAO GANJEWAR
                                              …
                Shri Harshad H. Padalkar, advocate for the applicant/ accused.
                Shri M.R. Malpani, advocate i/by Shri Shailendra S.
                Gangakhedkar, advocate for the respondent/ complainant.
                                              …

                                    CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                    DATE : 03 September 2026

                P. C. :-

                1.         Not on the Board. Mentioned. Taken on the

                Production Board.


                2.         This is joint application for compounding the

                offence by way of compromise. The terms and conditions of

                compromise are mentioned in paragraph No.3 of this joint

                Criminal Application No.3098/2026.


                3.         In the Criminal Revision Application, the applicant/

                accused has challenged the judgment and order dated
                               *2*                       1nob revn89o18


16.03.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-5,

Nanded, in Criminal Appeal No.86/2011 thereby, dismissing the

said appeal and confirming the judgment and order dated

28.11.2011 passed by the learned JMFC, Nanded, in SCC

No.1373/2009 whereby, the applicant was convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and he was sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for four months and to pay compensation of

Rs.3,36,000/-   and   in   default   to   suffer   further   simple

imprisonment for three months.


4.          Today, by virtue of the instant application, both the

applicant as well as the complainant are present before the

Court and they have been identified by their respective

advocates. They have reduced the terms of compromise into

writing and prayed for permission to compound the offence. It is

stated in the compromise that the amount of compensation has

been deposited in this Court as well as before the Trial Court

and the complainant is permitted to withdraw the said amount

with accrued interest. The parties have voluntarily agreed to

compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and have requested that, in view of
                                     *3*                         1nob revn89o18


      such compounding, the conviction and sentence recorded

      against the applicant/accused be set aside.


      5.          In view of the offence having been compounded,

      the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Courts below

      are set aside. The applicant/accused is acquitted of the offence

      punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

      Act. As such, the Criminal Application as well as the Criminal

      Revision Application ares, accordingly, allowed.


      6.          The complainant is permitted to withdraw the

      amount deposited by the applicant/ accused in this Court as

      well as in the lower Court, along with accrued interest.




kps                            ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…