Allahabad High Court
VEER SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SANJIV KUMAR
Holding
The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was set aside and the revisionist was acquitted, as the parties had entered into a valid compromise.
Summary
Veer Singh was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10 lakh, with Rs.9 lakh directed as compensation under Section 357(1) of the Cr.P.C. Both parties later entered into a compromise, with the complainant receiving Rs.5 lakh, and the complainant expressed no further grievance. The revisionist filed a criminal revision challenging the conviction, arguing that the offence is compoundable and the compromise should set aside the conviction and related orders. The High Court, after noting the compromise and the complainant's consent, allowed the revision, set aside the trial and appellate court orders, and acquitted the revisionist of the Section 138 offence. The order directed the trial court to comply with the set‑aside.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be set aside on the ground that the offence is compoundable and the parties have reached a compromise after conviction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 357(1)
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Section 138 NI Act
- compoundable offence
- compromise
- criminal revision
- acquittal
- fine
- compensation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5539 of 2026
Veer Singh
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Virendra
Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Satish Kumar Mishra, G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.
1. Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Satish Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.2 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order
dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC-II,
Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No.146 of 2023 (Veer Singh vs.
State of U.P. and Another) as well as judgement and order dated
16.10.2023 passed by the Additional Court No.2, Gautam Budha Nagar in
Complaint Case No.5913 of 2022 (Seema vs. Veer Singh).
3. The learned Trial Court convicted the revisionist for the offence
punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to
undergo six months’ simple imprisonment. A fine of Rs. 10 lakhs was
also imposed upon him. In default of payment of the fine, he was further
directed to undergo imprisonment for three months. It was further
directed that, out of the total amount of fine, Rs. 9 lakhs be disbursed to
the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. The
revisionist filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment and order of the
Trial Court, which was dismissed on 15.07.2026.
4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the
offence was compoundable at any stage of the proceedings. After the
decision of the appeal, both parties entered into a compromise and
CRLR No. 5539 of 2026
2
appeared before the learned Trial Court, which endorsed the said
compromise by passing the order dated 27.07.2026. A copy of the said
order has been placed on record by way of supplementary affidavit, which
shows that, in terms of the compromise, the convict paid a sum of Rs.5
lakhs to opposite party No.2/complainant, which she received, and her
statement in this regard was also recorded. It is, therefore, submitted that
since both parties have settled their dispute by entering into a
compromise, the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the
learned Appellate Court be set aside in terms of the compromise.
5. Learned Counsel for opposite party No.2 has admitted that both the
parties have entered into compromise and opposite party
No.2/complainant has received the amount. She now has no grievance
against the revisionist and has no objection if the judgments and orders of
the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court are set aside.
6. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and the compromise entered into between the revisionist and opposite
party No. 2, the present revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and
orders passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are hereby set
aside. Consequently, the conviction of the revisionist under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also set aside, and the revisionist is
acquitted of the said offence.
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for
necessary compliance.
(Sanjiv Kumar,J.)
September 23, 2026
Amit
Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…