Allowed

Kishan Lal Kishan Das v. State

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2021CRLR/31/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur appreciated a compromise between the complainant and the petitioner in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. The court set aside the conviction, convicted, sentence of imprisonment under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. However, it imposed a cost of 15% of the cheque amount on the petitioner as per Supreme Court precedent in Damodar S. Prabhu cas

What did the court decide?

Conviction, sentence set aside; petitioner directed to deposit 15% of cheque amount with State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within two weeks.

Kishan Lal Kishan Das Vs State — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 31/2021

¶3

Kishan Lal @ Kishan Das S/o Narayan Das, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Rankawat, R/o Near Petrol Pump, Manpura, Aburoad Dist. Sirohi. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State, Through Pp

¶7

Om Prakash S/o Jagdish Ji, B/c Prajapat, R/o 24-B, Shivaji Marg, Masuria, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Farzand Ali GA cum AAG, a/w Mr. Vikram Sharma Mr. Ganesh Kumar Parjapat for Mr. D.R. Bishnoi

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

22/01/2021

¶13

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶14

Though the present revision petition was decided by this Court on 20.01.2021 but on account of the defect being pointed out that the same petitioner, praying for the same set of relief, against the same impugned order, passed by the same learned court below preferred two petitions, the present petition was ordered to be listed in the category of 'To be mentioned' before this Court today.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon to satisfy this Court as to whether the aforementioned fact is correct or not.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLR-31/2021]

¶18

Upon this, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded before this Court that the set of filing of the petitions by the same petitioner for the same set of relief as above is correct.

¶19

However, since the identical revision petition no.1596/2019 filed by the same petitioner 'the present petitioner', which is listed before this court today and the same was not pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and was dismissed accordingly, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by this Court in the present case on 20.01.2021 shall remain intact. However, for the purpose of clarity, the aforesaid order passed by this Court on 20.01.2021 in this case is reproduced hereunder:-

¶20

"20/01/2021

¶21

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶22

It is stated at the Bar that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties after the judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by the appellate court whereby the judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by the trial has been affirmed. It is borne out that the complainant is not inclined to proceed further in the matter. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H [2010(5) SCC 66].

¶23

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant respondent No.2 had accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of the cheque, on the satisfaction of the complainant and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLR-31/2021]

¶26

Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (supra), the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra).

¶27

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two weeks from today.

¶28

The conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, vide judgment dated 18.05.2018 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.4, in criminal case No.25/2015 as affirmed by judgment dated 12.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur in Criminal Appeal No.286/2018, is hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.

¶29

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay petition also stands disposed of. "

¶30

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶31

357-sudheer/-

Kishan Lal Kishan Das v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal Kishan Das v. State

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

Vinod Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State

Tamanna Kothari Vs State