Partly allowed

Arjun Singh Dhir v. Deepak Keswan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2019CRLR/921/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Criminal Revision No. 921/2018, the Rajasthan High Court partly allowed the revision petition. The court allowed for the compounding of the cheque dishonour offence despite the opposition of the Public Prosecutor, subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.21,000/- with the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Offence compounded; orders below quashed subject to petitioner depositing Rs.21,000/- with R.H.C. Legal Services Authority within four weeks; application for suspension of sentence disposed.

Arjun Singh Dhir Vs Deepak Keswan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 921/2018

¶3

Arjun Singh Dhir S/o Shri Inderjeet Singh, R/o House No.16, Kishani Bhawan, Joshi Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deepak Keswani S/o Shri Vasumal Keswani, Proprietor Dvd Jain International, 5, Parivahan Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur For Complainant(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote For State : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

11/01/2019

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by judgment and order dated 16.11.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act and has been sentenced simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.2,75,000/- was imposed and against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that parties have amicably settled the dispute and complainant has no objection to the offence being compounded.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLR-921/2018]

¶17

The fact that parties have entered into a compromise is not disputed by counsel for the complainant.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. 5. I have considered the contentions.

¶19

In view of the fact that parties have amicably settled the dispute, I deem it proper to partly allow the revision petition.

¶20

Revision petition is, accordingly, partly allowed. Offence is compounded. Orders passed by the Court below are quashed and set aside. Offence is compounded subject to petitioner’s depositing a sum of Rs.21,000/- with the Rajasthan High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of this order and submit proof thereof, before the Court below. In the event of non-submission of proof of deposit of Rs.11,000/-, the judgment passed by the Court below would stand and Court below would be free to execute sentence.

¶21

Application for suspension of sentence stands disposed.

¶22

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶23

Arti/24

Arjun Singh Dhir v. Deepak Keswan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Singh Dhir v. Deepak Keswan 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

Sona (Sonu) Bai D/O Shanti Lal B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajesh S/O Ramjilal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Deenu @ Deen Mohammed Son of Shri Chahat Khan, by Caste Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Nath S/O Shri Anandnath, by Caste Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohitash @ Rahul S/O Bane Singh @ Baniya B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Tahir S/O Shri Abdul Shameem B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.