Sunder Das Rohra Vs Smt. Anita Soni

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:50988

¶3

Digitally signed by ALOK ALOK SHARMA SHARMA Date:2025.10.14 11:14:36 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRR No. 99 of 2020

¶7

1 - Sunder Das Rohra S/o Shri Parasram Rohra Aged About 50 Years (Now 52 Years), R/o Adarsh Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Smt. Anita Soni W/o Shri Ravi Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Lohar Gali, Sarju Bagicha, Adjacent Road To Airtel Office, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

CRR No. 120 of 2020

¶13

1 - Smt. Anita Soni W/o Ravi Soni Aged About 36 Years R/o Lohar Gali, Sarju Bagicha Near Airtel Office Road, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Petitioner(s)

¶15

Versus

¶16

1 - Sundardas Rohara S/o Parasram Rohara Aged About 50 Years R/o Adarsh Colony, Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

--- Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Lal, on behalf of Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Likesh Kumar, on behalf of Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

2

13/10/2025

Both the parties are present in person before this Court and they have been identified by their counsel.

¶24

On 06.10.2025, the parties have submitted that they have amicably settled their dispute for the total amount of Rs. 1,09,000/-. Out of the total amount of settlement Rs. 29,000/- has already been paid to the complaint/petitioner during the trial and out of the remaining amount of Rs. 80,000/-, the respondent/accused had paid Rs. 71,000/- on that day itself. The remaining amount is being paid by the respondent/accused today, to which the petitioner does not dispute that he has received all the amount as per the settlement between the parties.

¶25

Heard on application I.A. No. 02/2025, which is an application for settlement of the case which has been supported by the parties concerned.

¶26

The Criminal Revision No. 99/2020, filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence, whereas the Criminal Revision No. 120/2020 has been filed by the accused challenging her conviction and sentence. The accused Smt. Anita Soni was an accused in Criminal Complaint Case No. 397/2017 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, initiated on the complaint lodged by the complainant Sunder Das Rohra before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Vide judgment dated 27.02.2019, she was convicted and sentenced till rising of the Court and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,16,000/- to the complainant within one month. The conviction and sentence was challenged by her before the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 79/2019, which was decided on 17.12.2019 dismissing the appeal filed by the accused which are under challenged in the Criminal Revision No. 120/2020.

¶27

During the pendency of these two criminal revisions, the parties have amicably settled their dispute for total consideration of Rs. 1,09,000/- and

¶28

3

¶29

Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant on earlier occasion and Rs. 9,000/- has been paid by the accused to the complainant today itself which are parties have accepted.

¶30

The offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is compoundable as provided under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Since the parties have entered into compromise and the entire amount has been paid to the complainant as per their settlement, no fruitful purpose would be served if both these revisions are kept pending for its final adjudication. Since parties have settled their dispute amicably, it would be appropriate for this Court to compound the offence alleged against the accused.

¶31

In view of the compromise between the parties, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 397/2012 as well as judgment dated 17.12.2019 passed learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 79/2019 are set aside. The effect of compounding the offence amounts to acquittal of the accused as provided under Section 359 (8) of the BNSS, 2023.

¶32

With the aforesaid observation, the both these criminal revisions are finally disposed of.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶35

Alok

Sunder Das Rohra v. Smt. Anita Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunder Das Rohra v. Smt. Anita Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jairam Kaiwartya Vs Parmeshwar Traders

Pradeep Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramratan Tomar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Bhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramcharan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Banke Bihari Shukla Vs the State of Chhattisgarh