Allowed

Khemraj v. Bhumi Vikas Bank and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Jul 2017CRLR/1049/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On the motion of settlement between the parties, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the S.B. Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

The revision and appeal were allowed; the petitioner is acquitted of the charge; the impugned judgments are set aside; costs are waived.

Khemraj Vs Bhumi Vikas Bank and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Application Criminal No. 507 / 2017

¶3

¶4

S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 1049/2016

¶5

Khemraj son of Shri Valji Suthar, resident of Kharka, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1.Bhumi Vikas Bank, Salumber through Secretary Amrit Lal son of Shri Rooplal Ji Sharma, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.

¶9

State of Rajasthan

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh & Mr. L.R.Upadhyay, P.P.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

25/07/2017

¶16

On the previous date of hearing this Court was apprised that the parties have settled their dispute.

¶17

Today Mr. Shambhoo Singh, Advocate representing the respondent Bank has placed on record a mutual compromise document indicating that the parties have settled their dispute. Though the document is not in the prescribed proforma as per Section 147 of the N.I.Act but considering the circumstance that the petitioner herein has deposited a demand draft of Rs. One lakh in the trial court to be paid to the respondent complainant Bank and as an additional sum of Rs. 70,000/- has been paid by him to the bank in cash and as the Bank has agreed to settle the dispute,

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 24.8.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Salumber in appeal confirming the judgment dated 15.10.2012 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salumber in Cr. Case No. 43/2011 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 N.I.Act are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is a poor farmer and has remained in custody for a period exceeding 15 days. Thus, the requirement of imposing cost in terms of Supreme Court decision in the case of Damodar S.Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babu Lal, reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 493 is waived . The D.D. submitted by the petitioner in the trial court shall be immediately handed over to the respondent complainant bank if required after renewal. Since the revision itself has been allowed,, the application moved by the learned counsel for the respondent for withdrawal of the D.D. also stands disposed of.

¶20

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶21

/sushil/

Khemraj v. Bhumi Vikas Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khemraj v. Bhumi Vikas Bank 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sintu Ram and Ors. Vs State

Mohd. Hussain Vs State and Ors.

Prakash Kumar Vs Dilip Singh and Anr.

State Vs Sukhpreet Singh and Anr.

Hanuman Prasad Vs State and Ors.

Hemant Kumar Vs Manish Bhandari