Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prashant Jawarkar, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Dr. Ganesh Vasu, alleging dishonour of a cheque. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, acquitted the accused but directed the complainant to pay compensation of Rs.25,000 to the accused under Section 250(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with default simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 250(3). The appellant challenged only the compensation order, as leave to appeal against acquittal was rejected. The High Court observed that the Magistrate did not record any finding that the complaint was false or vexatious. The court noted that the complainant had placed on record the cheque, return memo, demand notice, postal receipts, and reply, and the signature on the cheque was not disputed. The mere failure to prove the case does not automatically attract Section 250 CrPC. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the compensation order, and directed that any amount deposited be refunded to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Compensation under Section 250 CrPC - Requirement of False or Vexatious Complaint - The Magistrate directed compensation under Section 250 CrPC solely on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The High Court held that mere failure to prove the case is not sufficient to attract Section 250 CrPC; there must be a finding that the complaint was false or vexatious. Since no such finding was recorded, the order of compensation was set aside. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in directing payment of compensation under Section 250 CrPC merely because the complainant failed to prove the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16/03/2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Akola, directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs.25,000 to the respondent under Section 250(2) CrPC and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days under Section 250(3) CrPC, is quashed and set aside. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant in the trial court or in this Court, be refunded to the appellant.
Law Points
- Section 250 CrPC requires a finding that complaint was false or vexatious
- mere failure to prove case is not sufficient
- compensation cannot be automatic on acquittal
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (11) 444
Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2017
Mr. N.B. Jawade for the Appellant, None for the Respondent
Prashant s/o. Himmatrao Jawarkar
Dr. Ganesh s/o. Pandurang Vasu
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against order of compensation under Section 250 CrPC in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the order directing him to pay compensation of Rs.25,000 to the respondent/accused
Filing Reason
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent for dishonour of cheque; the Magistrate acquitted the accused but directed the complainant to pay compensation under Section 250 CrPC
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Akola, by judgment dated 16/03/2017, acquitted the accused under Section 138 NI Act but directed the complainant to pay Rs.25,000 compensation under Section 250(2) CrPC, with default imprisonment. This Court on 07/07/2017 rejected leave to appeal against acquittal but allowed leave to challenge the compensation order.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was justified in directing payment of compensation under Section 250 CrPC merely because the complainant failed to prove the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Submissions/Arguments
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that mere failure to prove the case is not sufficient to direct payment of compensation under Section 250 CrPC.
The counsel further submitted that the signature on the cheque was not disputed by the respondent, and the complainant had placed on record the cheque, return memo, demand notice, postal acknowledgment, postal receipt, reply of accused, and receipts.
Ratio Decidendi
Mere failure to prove the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not sufficient to attract Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There must be a finding that the complaint was false or vexatious. Since no such finding was recorded, the order of compensation is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, erred in granting compensation as mere failure to prove the case by itself is not sufficient to direct payment of compensation under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C.
The order of compensation under Section 250 CrPC cannot be passed merely because the complainant failed to prove the case. There must be a finding that the complaint was false or vexatious.
Procedural History
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola, by judgment dated 16/03/2017, acquitted the accused but directed the complainant to pay compensation under Section 250 CrPC. The appellant filed an application for leave to appeal. This Court on 07/07/2017 rejected leave to appeal against acquittal but allowed leave to challenge the compensation order. The appeal was admitted only to the extent of compensation. The appeal was heard and decided on 18/11/2025.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 250(2), 250(3)
