Allowed

Rambabu Goyal v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2018CRLMP/6172/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an S.B. Crl. Misc. petition regarding the default dismissal of a criminal appeal. Noting that a compromise was reached and payment made after the appeal's dismissal, the Court acquitted the accused, set aside the impugned orders, and held that no proceedings are served given the settlement.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous petition was allowed; the accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and the order rejecting the restoration of the appeal.

Rambabu Goyal Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6172 / 2017

¶3

Rambabu Goyal son of Shri Manmohan Goyal, by caste Mahajan, resident of House No.490 Rasta Hanumanji, Badi Chopar Jaipur, shopkeeper of Govind Textile, Jhotwara Road, Near Pulia, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Raj through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Rajesh Dalmiya son of Shri Laxmi Chand Dalmiya, resident of 366, Rajni Vihar, Heerapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aladeen Khan, PP

¶11

Mr. Rahul Kumar.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

02/01/2018

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as also the complainant- respondent No.2.

¶16

This misc. petition has been preferred to challenge the order dated 31.10.2017, whereby the application for restoration of the criminal appeal has been rejected on the ground that there is no such provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to restore the appeal.

¶17

The relevant facts for consideration are that on the complaint filed by complainant Rajesh Dalmiya against accused Rambabu Goyal for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned trial court convicted the accused Rambabu for the aforesaid offence and punished him with simple imprisonment for two years

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMP-6172/2017]

¶20

alongwith a fine of Rs.2 lacs. and further simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine. Accused Rambabu preferred an appeal against said judgment, which was dismissed in default by the lower appellate court on 21.06.2014. Thereafter, the parties arrived at compromise on 29.07.2017 and the amount of dishonoured cheque was paid by the accused to the complainant.

¶21

Learned counsel for both the sides admit the fact that compromise has been arrived at between the parties on 29.07.2017, which has also been placed on record as Annexure-3.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this fact was also brought into the notice of learned lower appellate court. He further submits that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to dismiss the criminal appeal for non-prosecution on behalf of the appellant. Hence, the criminal appeal ought not to have been dismissed on 21.06.2014 for non-prosecution. This will be only an abuse of process of law.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant admits the fact of the compromise having been arrived at between the parties, after repaying the cheque amount to the cmoplainant.

¶24

Taking note of the facts mentioned above, this Court is of the view that no purpose will be served in continuing the proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as the matter has already been amicably settled between the parties by way of repaying the amount of dishonoured cheque to the complainant. In view of the compromise, the accused-petitioner Rambabu Goyal is acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act.

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-6172/2017]

¶27

Consequently, the misc. petition is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 31.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan and the judgment dated 25.09.2012 passed by the learned trial court convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is set-aside in view of the compromise arrived at between the

¶28

parties.

¶29

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J. Rm/43

Rambabu Goyal v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambabu Goyal v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Monika Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhori Lal and Ors. Vs Smt Soni and Ors.

Harimohan Sharma Vs Gopi

Arun Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vk Jha Vs State and Ans

Krishnaballbh Vs State of Raj and Ors.