Allowed

Bhawani Singh Kachhawa v. M/S Avtar Finance and Anr.

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2019CRLR/437/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition in a Section 38 NI Act case. Noting that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and the complainant had no objection to compounding the offence, the court set aside impugned orders, compounded the offence, and directed the release of deposited amounts to the complainant after retaining court costs.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded; impugned orders set aside; Rs.2850/- retained as costs; balance Rs.27,150/- returned to complainant.

Bhawani Singh Kachhawa Vs M/S Avtar Finance and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 437/2013

¶3

Bhawani Singh Kachhawa, S/o Shri Roop Singh, Plot No.F-1411, Govindpura, JDA Colony, Sanganer, Shikarpura Road, Jaipur, Thana Sanganer Sadar.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Avtar Finance through proprietor Harmahendar Singh Office & Residence 2/563, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur.

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Dutt Sharma. For State : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, PP For Complainant : Mr. Nawal Sing Sikarwar. .

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

17/01/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by Judgment & Order dated 26.07.2011 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby petitioner has been convicted for offence under Section 38 of N.I. Act and against the Judgment & Order dated 29.08.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a poor labourer, who has deposited Rs.30,000/- in terms of the order dated 31.05.2013 passed by High Court. It is contended

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLR-437/2013]

¶17

that the matter be now compounded as parties have amicably settled the dispute.

¶18

Counsel for the complainant has no objection to the offence being compounded. His only contention is that he now be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

In view of the fact that parties have amicably settled the dispute, offence is compounded. Orders passed by the court below are set aside. Out of total amount deposited by petitioner Rs.2850/-, which is 15 percent of the checque amount be retained by the Court, as cost of proceedings and the balance amount is Rs.27,150 be returned to the complainant-respondent.

¶21

Revision petition is accordingly allowed.

¶22

Pending applications stands disposed.

¶23

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.

¶24

Chandan/5

Bhawani Singh Kachhawa v. M/S Avtar Finance and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhawani Singh Kachhawa v. M/S Avtar Finance 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

Jagdish S/O Ramnath B/C Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Daw Singh S/O Shri Lumb Singh B/C Rawat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajeram S/O Shri Nathuram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kanhiyalal Vs State

Badri Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Shahnaz @ Shabana Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp