1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 83 OF 2009 Manoj s/o Bhikamchand Dange, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o Telhara, Tq. Telhara, District Akola -- APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Sk. Jafar Husain Sk. Abbas, Aged about 42 years, Occupation - Service, R/o Telhara, Tq. Telhara, District Akola. 2) State of Maharashtra -- NON-APPLICANTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A.J. Thakkar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.B. Mirza, Advocate for non-applicant No.1 Mr. D.B. Yengal, APP for the non-applicant No.2/State -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM :- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 26th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The applicant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against non-applicant No.1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara being Criminal Case No.327/2007. In the said case a compromise was arrived at between the applicant and non-applicant No.1 and sum of Rs. 20,000/- bearing Cheque No.065888 was given. The said cheque came to be dishonoured and that is how the applicant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being Summary Criminal Case No.503/2008 in the 2 Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Telhara. In the said case an application for dismissal of the complaint and dischrage of the accused was made on the ground that the cheque for Rs.20,000/- is not towards the fulfillment of the existing debt or liability but was towards satisfaction of the compromise amount. That application came to be rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by judgment and order dated 4th February, 2009. Against which non-applicant No.1 filed Revision in the District Court being Criminal Revision No.11/2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at Akot granted the said Revision by judgment and order dated 26th March, 2009 by referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case Lalit Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and another reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 526. Against this order dated 26th March, 2009 allowing the revision, original complainant/applicant has filed this revision application. 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. It is noticed that the impugned cheque for Rs.20,000/- was given towards satisfaction of the compromise amount and not on account of existing debt or liability as understood under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma and another Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and another reported in 2008 (6) Mh.L.J. 526 was proper. The point decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case is directly applicable to the facts of this case and to that extent the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed a proper order and as such no interference is required in the impugned order passed 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition is dismissed. JUDGE adgokar.