Allowed

Premlal v. Suresh Joshi

Rajasthan HC14 Jan 2022CRLR/20/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court observed that the entire disputed amount was paid and a compromise was entered into by the parties during the pendency of the petition, relying on Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 19.12.2019 and 30.6.2018 were quashed and set aside, and the petitioner in judicial custody may be released forthwith.

Premlal Vs Suresh Joshi — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 20/2022

¶3

Premlal S/o Keshulal Gameti, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Boro Ka Guda, Amberi, Tehsil Badgaav, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Suresh Joshi S/o Shri Radhakishan Joshi, R/o 8, Ratneshwar Colony, Gadhmagri, Shobhagpura, Udaipur (Raj.)

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Khatri

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment

¶12

14/01/2022

¶13

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in cr. appeal no.37/2018 (CIS No.260/2018) affirming the judgment and order dated 30.6.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Original Case No.280/2015 (CIS No.16107/2015) whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the NI Act to six months simple imprisonment with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the present revision petition, the entire amount has been paid to the complainant. He further submits that the dispute of the non-payment of the amount has been settled between the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLR-20/2022]

¶17

parties by entering into a compromise. In this regard, the petitioner has also submitted copy of the compromise on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Laxmi Narayan & ors. Reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663.

¶19

The fact of compromise is not disputed by the counsel for the complainant-respondent.

¶20

In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the compromise having been entered into between the parties, the present revision petition is allowed and the orders dated 19.12.2019 and 30.6.2018 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶21

If the petitioner is in judicial custody, he may be released forthwith.

¶22

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶23

14-CPGoyal/-

Premlal v. Suresh Joshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlal v. Suresh Joshi

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

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Regd. Vs Prabhuram

Mandeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Tushar Vs State of Rajasthan

Devnarayan Vs State

Veerbhadra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan