Allowed

Amarchand Suthar v. Siyaram Shakti Traders and Anr.

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2017CRLR/1368/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1368/2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed the petitioner's petition. The Court held that since the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been compounded by the complainant, the impugned judgments convicting the petitioner were quashed and set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgments dated 14.01.2016 and 28.10.2017 were quashed. The petitioner was acquitted from the charge and set at liberty.

Amarchand Suthar Vs Siyaram Shakti Traders and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1368 / 2017

¶3

Amarchand Suthar s/o Shri Bhairaram Suthar, b/c Suthar, r/o Bhairupura(Silwani), Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Siyaram Shakti Traders, New Dhanmandi Suratgarh through Partner Ajeet Singh Rathore s/o Shri Arjun Singh Rathore b/c Rajpur, r/o Ward No.26 Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kailash Khatri.

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Surendra Singh.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

06/11/2017

¶13

Issue notice. The respondent is represented by learned counsel Mr.Surendra Singh. Thus, service is complete.

¶14

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, final arguments have been heard on the revision today itself.

¶15

The petitioner accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by judgment dated 14.1.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Criminal Original Case No.634/2005 and was sentenced to 1 year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,35,000/-, in default to further undergo 1 month's additional S.I. The said judgment of conviction was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh by

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLR-1368/2017]

¶18

judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No.10/2016 (CIS No.10/2016). Hence, this revision.

¶19

The petitioner allegedly gave a cheque no.135562 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the respondent complainant which was dishonoured upon being presented in the Bank. The respondent completed the due formalities of issuing notice and then proceeded to lodge a complaint against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. After trial, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as above and the appeal preferred against the judgment of conviction too has been rejected.

¶20

Today, the Court was informed that the complainant respondent has compromised the matter with the accused petitioner. A formal application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was moved by the complainant which has been verified by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial). The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable without permission of the Court. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that as the offence has been compounded by the complainant the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of cost in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Syed Babalal reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 .

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLR-1368/2017]

¶23

Resultantly, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The judgments dated 14.1.2016 and 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh respectively are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- by way of cost in the trial Court in terms of the above referred Supreme Court judgment within a period of four weeks from today.

¶24

Application for suspension of sentence No.362/2017 and I.A. No.1393/2017 stand disposed of accordingly.

¶25

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶26

S.Phophaliya/-

Amarchand Suthar v. Siyaram Shakti Traders and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarchand Suthar v. Siyaram Shakti Traders 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

Himanshu Gadhvi Vs State and Anr.

Tribhuwan Vs State and Anr.

Bhagwati Lal Vs Navratan

Banshi Lal Vs State and Anr.

Nanu Das Vs State

Mukeem Khan @ Mukesh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.