# Mukesh Kumar Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 957
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision Defective No. 2152 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-kumar-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54345
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

3 All. Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
957

11. Upon examining the impugned order dated 11.12.2025, this Court finds that the trial court
has carefully analyzed the application by accused-petitioner and other material on record while
rejecting the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 does not
suffer from any illegality or impropriety, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

12. The revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 957
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Criminal Revision Defective No. 2152 of 2025

Mukesh Kumar ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be
permitted to be compounded at the revisional stage after affirmation of conviction by the appellate court?
(ii) Whether subsequent compromise between the complainant and the accused, coupled with full satisfaction
of the agreed amount and consent of the complainant, warrants setting aside of the conviction and sentence
recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?
(iii) Whether the nature and object of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act justify
acceptance of compromise after conviction?

Headnotes
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 147 - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of
offence - Compromise entered into after dismissal of appeal and during pendency of revision -
Complainant receiving agreed amount and consenting to compounding - Effect.

HELD: Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 declares every offence punishable under the Act
to be compoundable. Where during pendency of the revision proceedings the parties amicably settled the
dispute, the complainant acknowledged receipt of the agreed amount and expressly consented to
compounding of the offence, there remained no impediment to permit compounding. The subsequent
settlement fully redressed the grievance of the complainant arising out of non-payment of the cheque amount
and justified acceptance of the compromise. [Paras 3 to 7]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 147 - Compounding of offence - Stage at
which permissible - Post-conviction stage - Appeal and revision.

HELD: It is well settled that permission to compound an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act may
be granted at any stage of the proceedings, including after conviction and during pendency of appeal or
revision, provided the complainant consents and there exists no legal impediment to such compounding. The
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mere fact that the conviction had been affirmed in appeal does not preclude the revisional court from
permitting compounding and giving effect to the settlement arrived at between the parties. [Para 7]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S. 138 - Nature of proceedings - Commercial transactions
- Object of enactment - Effect of settlement.

HELD: Proceedings arising out of dishonour of cheque, though criminal in form, are substantially intended to
secure credibility of commercial and financial transactions and to ensure payment of legally enforceable debt
or liability. Where the complainant's monetary claim stands satisfied through a voluntary settlement and the
complainant no longer wishes to prosecute the matter, acceptance of the compromise advances the object of
the statute by resolving the dispute and restoring harmony between the parties. [Paras 5 and 6]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 and 147 - Compounding of offence - Conviction
and sentence set aside.

HELD: In view of the compromise dated 16.09.2025, receipt of the entire settled amount by the complainant
and his consent to compounding, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed
by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court on 10.09.2025 were liable to be set aside and the
complaint rendered inconsequential. [Paras 6 to 8]

Revision allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
-None-

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Dishonour of cheque; Compounding of offence; Post-conviction compromise; Settlement; Revision;
Commercial transaction; Compensation; Conviction set aside; Cheque dishonour; Amicable settlement.

Case Arising From
Judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Agra in Criminal Appeal
No. 12 of 2025, Mukesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra in Criminal Complaint
Case No. 501 of 2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist: Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Sri Sandeep Kumar Keshari.
For the Respondents: Sri Girish Chandra and Sri Gyan Prakash Dwivedi; learned G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

In Ref: Criminal Misc. Exemption Application.

1. The revision petition has been reported to be defective on account of non filing of certified
copy of the judgment dated 19.12.2024 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Court, N.I. Act, Agra.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.
3 All. Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
959

3. The petitioner is exempted to file certified copy of the order dated 19.12.2024.

4. Office to allot regular number to the present revision petition.

(Order on Revision Petition)

1. Petitioner has filed this revision petition to challenge the impugned judgment dated
10.9.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.19, Agra in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of
2025, titled Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another, whereby the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 19.12.2024 passed by Special Court, 138 N.I. Act, Agra in Criminal
Complaint Case No. 501 of 2019, convicting the petitioner under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, has been upheld. The sentence of six months simple imprisonment
alongwith compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- imposed upon the accused-petitioner by the trial court has
also been affirmed.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant namely, M/s R.S. Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd.
through partner Vinod Kumar Upadhyay brought a criminal complaint bearing no. 501 of 2019
against Mukesh Kumar-petitioner with the allegations that the complainant is running a cold
storage and keeps potato and the petitioner had been purchasing potato from the complainant for a
long time, who had been making payments from time to time. The accused-petitioner purchased
potato worth Rs.17,68,956/- between 8.8.2027 to 20.11.2027 and against this a payment of
Rs.11,12,000/- was made to the complainant, whereas a sum of Rs.6,56,956/- remained as
outstanding amount. On demand of the balance amount by complainant, the accused-petitioner
assured that it would be cleared soon and on 28.9.2018 he issued a cheque bearing no.592451
amounting to Rs.6,10,000/-, but on presentation on 1.10.2018 by the complainant in his account
bearing Account No.4018201000014, the same was dishonored on 3.10.2018 on account of
"insufficient funds". Upon an assurance given by accused-petitioner, the said cheque was again
presented on 14.11.2018, but again on 15.11.2018 it was dishonored, whereupon a demand notice
dated 12.12.2018 was sent to the accused-petitioner through registered post, which was served
upon him on 18.12.2018, but despite that the debt was not cleared by the accused-petitioner,
therefore, the subject complaint was filed on 11.1.2019.

3. After recording the pre-summoning evidence, the accused was summoned and finally the
trial ended in conviction of the accused-petitioner vide judgment dated 19.12.2024 and on the same
day, the sentence of six months simple imprisonment alongwith compensation of Rs.7,56,400/- was
imposed upon the convict-petitioner and further, it was ordered that out of it, Rs.7,40,000/- be paid
to the complainant as compensation, whereas remaining amount of Rs.16,400/- was ordered to be
deposited with the treasury as fine. In the event of non deposit of the amount, the same was ordered
be recovered from the property of the accused-petitioner.

4. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2024, the
petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2025 before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Agra and through the impugned judgment dated 10.9.2025 the same was
dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Annexure
No.5 to contend that after the judgment dated 10.9.2025 passed by appellate court, the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and a written compromise has been executed. While referring to the
compromise, learned counsel has pointed out that as per the agreement between the parties, the
accused-petitioner is to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant and on receiving the said amount, the
complainant shall have no grievance against the petitioner-convict, who has consented for
compounding the offence. Learned counsel states that during the pendency of the appeal, a sum of
Rs.75,640/- already stood deposited by the petitioner-convict before the appellate court and another
sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was transferred in the account of the complainant by way of RTGS bearing
no. UBINH25259395905.

6. Besides, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid
to the complainant in cash, therefore, the agreed amount of Rs.5 lacs has been received by the
complainant. Learned counsel prays that in view of the subsequent development of compromise
between the parties, the petitioner be allowed to compound the offence and the impugned
judgments passed by the trial court and the appellate court be set aside.

7. The complainant-opposite party no.2 is represented by Mr. Gyan Prakash Dwivedi,
Advocate who in response to the stand of the petitioner has fairly stated that the agreed amount of
Rs.5 lacs stands received by the complainant and the compromise dated 16.9.2025 is signed by
Vinod Kumar Upadhayay, representative of the company M/s R.S. Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd., and he
further states that the complainant has no objection, if, the offence under Section 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is allowed to be compounded, and the impugned judgments of conviction
passed by both the courts are set aside.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this
Court finds that according to the complainant itself, the accused-petitioner was engaged in business
transactions with the complainant's company for a long time and he had been making payments
from time to time to clear the dues. The dispute arose when the material worth Rs.17,68,956/- was
purchased by the accused-petitioner, but against that an amount of Rs.6,56,956/- remained
outstanding, after making a payment of Rs.11,12,000/- in favour of complainant. Dishonor of
cheque though is a penal offence, but the nature of the proceedings are alike a civil dispute and one
of the aims and objects of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is to provide safeguards for mercantile
transactions and to inject strength to the commercial/financial transactions. Thus, in such cases, the
grievance of the complainant (drawee of the cheque) relates to the non clearance of debt by the
accused, and if, the due money paid by the accused to the complainant, ordinarily the grievance is
redressed.

9. By virtue of amendment in Negotiable Instruments Act through Act No. 55 of 2002 under
Section 147 was inserted, which contemplates that every offence punishable under Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 shall be compoundable. Of course, compounding of an offence has to be on
the basis of the consent by complainant and where such an agreement is arrived at between the
accused and the complainant, ordinarily the courts permit compounding of offence. By now, it is
also settled law that permission to compound the offence can be granted at any stage and even after
3 All. Ashok Kumar Vs. Tejveer Singh & Ors.
961
conviction i.e. either at the stage of pendency of the appeal or revision, if, there is no other
impediment to the compounding the offence.

10. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the old relations
between the parties as well as the complainant's consent in favour of the accused-convict for
agreeing to compound it, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting permission in this regard, as
it may not only eliminate the bitterness between the parties, but would also restore peace in their
relations.

11. Resultantly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2024
passed by the trial court, and affirmed by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 10.9.2025
are hereby set aside and the criminal complaint is rendered inconsequential.

12. The revision petition is allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 961
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 563 of 1986

Ashok Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Tejveer Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether subsequent purchasers, who purchased the suit property during the pendency of a
suit for specific performance, could claim protection as bona fide purchasers for value without
notice under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, despite the applicability of the
doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
(ii) Whether an agreement to sell executed by a person having no title or imperfect title to the
property becomes specifically enforceable when the vendor subsequently acquires title during
the subsistence of the contract, in view of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read
with Section 13(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff, who was found ready and willing to perform his part of the contract,
was entitled to a decree for specific performance instead of the alternative relief of refund of
earnest money?

Headnotes
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s.52 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.19(b) - Specific
Performance - Transfer pendente lite - Subsequent purchasers claiming to be bona fide
purchasers for value without notice - Doctrine of lis pendens - Applicability:

Held: Where a suit for specific performance had already been instituted and thereafter the suit property was
transferred by the vendor during pendency of the suit, the transfer became subject to the doctrine of lis