Dismissed¶25

Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Mathura Prasad Kashayap

Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 CrPC – Enhancement of compensation under Section 138 NI Act

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2025CRR/515/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur | Criminal Revision No. 515 of 2016 | Decided 08/12/2025 | Justice Radhakishan Agrawal | Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Mathura Prasad Kashayap | Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act | Section 397/401 CrPC | refusal to enhance S.138 compensation to twice cheque amount where complainant did not appeal against trial Court's Rs.5 lakh compensation order; JMFC Bilaspur CC No.140/2011; Crl. Appeal No.76/2015 affirmed; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since only the accused appealed and the applicant/complainant did not challenge the trial Court's order dated 29.04.2015 before the appellate Court, the order awarding Rs.5 Lakhs compensation has become final. ¶22

Ajay Kumar Gupta Vs Mathura Prasad Kashayap — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:59601

NAFR

Digitally signed by PRAKASH PRAKASH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.12.10 18:31:31 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Revision No. 515 of 2016

¶7

Ajay Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Ratan Lal Gupta R/o - Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur, P.S. - Civil Line, Revenue District - Bilaspur – Chhattisgarh,

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

Mathura Prasad Kashayap S/o Chedilal Kashayap, R/o - Ganga Nagar, Sector -2, Mangala, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur - Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : None

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

08/12/2025

¶16

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed by the applicant/complainant against the impugned order dated 05.04.2016, passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.76/2015 (Mathura Prasad Kashyap vs. Ajay Kumar Gupta), by which the appeal preferred by the non-applicant/accused has been dismissed affirming the order of trial Court dated 29.04.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No. 140/2011 (Ajay Kumar Gupta vs. Mathura Prasad Kashyap) convicting the non-applicant/accused for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short

¶17

¶18

'NI Act') and directing to pay the cheque amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to the applicant.

¶19

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the amount of compensation may be made twice the cheque amount and the trial Court ought to have ordered for the same, therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed.

¶20

3. None appears for the non-applicant, though served.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, considered his submission made and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶22

5. By order dated 29.04.2015, the learned trial Court convicted the nonapplicant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and further directed him to pay Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to the applicant herein i.e. Ajay Kumar Gupta and, in default to which, he shall further undergo R.I. for six months. Against the said order, only the non-applicant/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 76/2015, which was also dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2016 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, whereas, the applicant/complainant – Ajay Kumar Gupta did not prefer any appeal, therefore, the order dated 29.04.2015, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs has become final. Further, the learned Trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence available on record has awarded Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation, which appears to be just and proper. This apart, the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned JMFC has not been challenged by the applicant/complainant

¶23

¶24

before the appellate Court. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the impugned order.

¶25

6. Accordingly, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶28

Prakash