TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS, read with Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'N.I. Act') seeking permission to compound the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in view of the Deed of Settlement dated 25.04.2026 executed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 143/2012. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that after the arrest of Applicant No. 2 - Hemant Jain, pursuant to the dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2015 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024, the parties have entered into a compromise on 25.04.2026 (Annexure A-4), and the entire amount along with costs has been paid to Respondent No. 2/complainant. It is further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said judgment was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G., in Criminal Appeal No. 137/2014 vide judgment dated 07.01.2015. Thereafter, applicants filed Criminal Revision No. 111 of 2015 which was dismissed on merits by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2024, recording a categorical finding that no illegality or infirmity exists in the concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Co-ordinate Bench further observed that despite repeated opportunities, and even reference of the matter to the Mediation Centre, the applicants failed to settle the dispute and failed to deposit the compensation amount. 6. Thus, the issue relating to conviction of the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el on both sides. Talab Haji Hussain vs Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, 1958 SCR 1226: AIR 1958 SC 376 relates to the power of the High Court to cancel bail. The High Court took the view that under Section 561A of the Code, it had inherent power to cancel the bail, and finding that on the material produced before the Court it would not be safe to permit the appellant to be at large cancelled the bail, distinguishing the decision in Lala Jairam Das v. King Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 94 and stated that the Privy Council was not called upon to consider the question about the inherent power of the High Court to cancel bail under Section 561A. In Sankatha Singh vs. State of U.P., 1962 Supp (2) SCR 817, this Court held that Section 369 read with Section 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 SC 633) that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgment as there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise revisional jurisdiction. This Court entertained the application for quashing the proceedings on the ground that a subsequent application to quash would not amount to review or revise an order made by the Court. The decision clearly lays down that a judgment of the High Court on appeal or revision cannot be reviewed or revised except in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The provisions of Section 561A ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment."" 9. Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that once a judgment has been finally passed, this Court cannot review or change it by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS. Since the conviction of Applicant No. 2- Hemant Jain has already been upheld and has attained finality, the present petition based on a subsequent compromise is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 10. Having gone through the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the ....