1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3361/2007 Uttam Chatki ..vs.. State =================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE : 5.3.2008 Heard Mr. Kapgate, Advocate for applicant, Mr. Fulzele, A.P.P. for state and Mr. Kankale, Advocate for respondent no.2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. This is an application under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code for allowing the applicant i.e. accused who has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur in Criminal Case No. 7924/2004 in complaint filed by respondent no.2 to compound the offence. It may be stated that the applicant was convicted by the judgment dated 18.7.2006 for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Criminal Case No.7924/2004 and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,75,000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for six months. The appeal was preferred by the applicant, however, the same was dismissed vide Criminal Appeal NO. 84/2006 by Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. Later on the applicant was sent to jail, however, thereafter, the matter was compromised between the parties. Accordingly pursis was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur on 28.5.2007. 2 Pursis was accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandrapur. Accused was directed to be released. However, later on sue motu revision No.100/2007 was entertained by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur and the said order was set aside by order dated 11.10.2007 and applicant / accused was directed to surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandrapur. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the matter has been compromised by the parties and though the appeal of the applicant was dismissed, that compromise should be allowed to take effect and the accused be acquitted by allowing this application. Learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 has nothing to say. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 – original complainant has filed his reply saying that the matter between the parties has been compromised and he has now no grievance against the accused/applicant. No doubt the appeal of the appellant was dismissed, and thereafter without pendency of any matter, the matter was compromised by the parties. The court has accepted the pursis to that effect. Therefore, prima facie it appears that the mater was compromised without there being any matter pending before any court. The entertaining of the sue motu revision by learned Sessions Judge in such circumstances, inasmuch has he has 3 observed that in such cases the matter can be referred to the Hon. High Court by filing suitable application, can not be found fault with. In such circumstances, such compromise out of court when there is no matter pending and the appeal against conviction has been dismissed, can not be allowed to have effect unless suitable orders are passed by the competent court. As the trial court has no power of review of its own Judgment particularly when it is confirmed in appeal as it becomes functious officio. In the present case the appeal of the appellant against conviction was dismissed by Sessions Judge Chandrapur. Therefore, it was incumbent on his part to file suitable proceedings to challenge that order before this court and if the said proceedings would have been pending, there could have been order to give effect to out of court compromise. Nonetheless now suitable proceedings are filed and required orders can be passed. In these circumstances, though such compromise, out of court to vitiate order of competent court can not be approved this application will have to be allowed. Hence application is allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant in Criminal Case No.7924/2004 dated 18.7.2006 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal no.84/2006 dated 25.5.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside and the applicant/accused is acquitted of all the said charges. It is made clear that the order passed by the Sessions Court directing the applicant to surrender is 4 also hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE smp.