Remanded

Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2018CRLR/611/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court condoned delay in filing a criminal revision regarding a cheque dishonour case. After finding a compromise between parties and payment of fine, the Court quashed convictions and affirmed orders below only upon non-payment within one month.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; offence compounded subject to deposit of Rs. 38,850/- within one month; lower court orders set aside if amount deposited.

Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 611/2016

¶3

Kailash Chand S/o Bhaiyaram, b/c Harijan, R/o Parbatsar, District Nagaur, presently working at Nagar Palika Parbatsar, District Nagaur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

Nemichand S/o Gheesu Lal Meghwanisi, R/o Shanti Nagar, Malusar Road, Ajmer.

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	:	----Respondent Mr. Govind Upadhyay
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Shiv S. Choudhary for Mr. Abhishek Vyas

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

15/11/2018

¶12

For the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

¶13

Accordingly application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 10.02.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.4, Ajmer whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and against judgment and order dated 21.06.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Ajmer whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that parties have entered into a compromise. Petitioner has paid the fine amount to

¶16

[CRLR-611/2016]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

the complainant, which fact is not disputed by complainant who is present in Court.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Considering the fact that parties have entered into a compromise, the offence is compounded subject to petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.38,850/- with the Rajasthan High Court, State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of one month.

¶21

If the amount is not deposited within a period of one month from today the judgment and orders passed by the Court below would stand affirmed and courts below would be free to execute the sentence.

¶22

Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. Application for suspension of sentence is disposed of. Judgment and orders passed by the Courts below are set aside.

¶23

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶24

Arun/55

Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand v. State of Rajasthan 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

Kasam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramnath and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Buddh Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kaptan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sweta Tripathi Vs Punit Dutta

Jitendra Kumar Ruthla S/O Shri Sanwar Mal B/C Brahmin Vs Shripal Sharma