t^ t^ll HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CRIMINAL REVISION N0,714/2011 APPLICANT RESPONDENT Mohd. Afsar Khan. S/o. Mohad. Karim Khan, Aged about 60 years, Occupation Property Dealer, R/o Rajendra Nagar , Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Smt. Rajeshwari Jaiswal, W/o Shri Umashankar Jaiswal, R/o Jarhabhata, Talapara Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.) CRlMINAL REVISION UNDER397 R/W SECTION 401 Cr.P.C, Appearance: ^ Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (12.12.2011) S13NIL KUIVIAR SINHA. J. Heard on admission, Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.12.2001 passed in Criminal Appeal No.56/2010 by the Sixth Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur; the applicant has filed this criminal revision. By the iCTpugned order, an application for compromise flled under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , has been ?'.........-. rejected by the Appetlate Court. The applicant has been convicted under Section 138 ofthe Negotiabie Instruments Act by the concerned Magistrate and jail sentence has been awarded to the applicant. Along with jail \sentence, the applicant has been directed to deposit the specified CRIMINAL REV1SION N0.714/2011 amount of compensation in the order passed by Magistrate. The applicant has filed the above appeal against the order passed by the concerned Magistrate, which is pending for consideration. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for compromise was flled. The respondent filed reply to the said appiication and contended that the amount agreed to be paid by the applicant was not paid to the respondent and by giving assurance, signature was taken on the agreement, on whlch, the applicant has filed the compromise application. The learned Additional Session Judge in view of the above reply of the respondent rejected the application filed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for compounding the offence. The learned Additional Session Judge has taken the view that the application for compounding the offence can be fiied on the consent ofjx^hjhe parties i.e. the complainant and the accused and if either ofrthem says that there is no consent for compromise or compounding the offence, the compounding would not be possibte. ;«I do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned AdditKinal Session Judge. The revision has no merit. The same is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ! Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna • ^ -;.-^^^i^y^^ ^^-^s^-/