Allowed

M\S Padam Kumar v. M\S G S Brothers and Anr.

Rajasthan HC3 Jan 2013CRLR/1041/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench disposal of two S.B. Cr. Revision Petitions. The Court set aside the conviction and ordered release of the deposited amount to the complainant in light of a revised settlement, relying on Damodar S. Prabhu.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of conviction is set aside; the Court below is directed to release the amount deposited in favour of the complainant immediately.

M\S Padam Kumar Vs M\S G S Brothers and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1041/2009 (M/s. Padam KUmar Pradeep Kumar Vs. M/s. G.S.Brothers & Anr.) along with one other

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1041/2009

¶5

(M/s. Padam Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. M/s. G.S. Brothers & Anr.)

¶6

AND

¶7

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1042/2009

¶8

(M/s. Padam Kumar Pradeep Kumar Vs. M/s. G.S. Brothers & Anr.)

¶9

Date of Order : 03^rd January, 2013

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶11

Mr.Nemi Chand Choudhary, for the petitioner. Mr.Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor. Mr.Vikas Jain, for the complainant/s.

¶12

By the Court:

¶13

It is stated that after conviction and dismissal of

¶14

appeal, the matter has been settled between the parties. According to settlement, the amount deposited with the Court below is to be given to the complainant/s. It is in the light of the para NO.6 of revised compromise. Accordingly, prayer is made to compound the offence in the light of the settlement between the parties.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent/s has no

¶16

objection to the aforesaid, however, a direction is sought that as per para NO.6 of revised compromise/settlement, amount

¶17

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1041/2009 (M/s. Padam KUmar Pradeep Kumar Vs. M/s. G.S.Brothers & Anr.) along with one other

¶18

¶19

deposited with the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Kota may be released in favour of the complainant.

¶20

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel and in the light of the revised compromise/settlement between the parties as well as judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 493 wherein it was held that offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be compounded in the light of the settlement between the parties, the impugned order of conviction is set aside and the Cort below is directed to release the amount, so deposited, in favour of the complainant immediately on production of copy of this order.

¶21

With the aforesaid, these revision petitions are

¶22

disposed of.

¶23

The record of the cases may accordingly be sent back

¶24

to the Court concerned.

¶25

(M.N.BHANDARI),J.

¶26

S/NO.37 & 38 Preety, Jr.P.A.

¶27

S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No.1041/2009 (M/s. Padam KUmar Pradeep Kumar Vs. M/s. G.S.Brothers & Anr.) along with one other

¶28

¶29

All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d gm en t / or d er h ave been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶30

Pr eet y Asop a Jr .P.A.

M\S Padam Kumar v. M\S G S Brothers and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M\S Padam Kumar v. M\S G S Brothers and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damodar Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Mudya @ Moolchand @ Bhuryua an Vs Tate

Ankur Kumar Sharma Vs State Ministry of Tourism Ors.

Abhimanyu and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Badri and Anor Vs State and Ors.

M\S Padam Kumar Vs M\S G S Brothers and Anr.