Allowed

Anita v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Jan 2022CRLR/47/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act following a post-conviction compromise between the parties, relying on binding Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act quashed; petitioner released forthwith from judicial custody; stay application disposed of.

Anita Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 47/2022

¶3

Anita W/o Vinod Harijan, Aged About 36 Years, Near Water Tank, Harijan Basti, Rc Vyas Colony, Dist. Bhilwara.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Ashok Kumar Gatyani S/o Radhe Shyam Gatyani, A-388 Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar, Dist. Bhilwara.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mahesh Joshi,through VC
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arvind Shrimali,through VC

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Judgment

¶12

20/01/2022

¶13

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 16.2.2021 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Attrocity Prevention), Bhilwara in cr. appeal no.23/2020 affirming the judgment and order dated 28.9.2018 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.9492/2017 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the NI Act to one year’s simple imprisonment with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months imprisonment.

¶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-47/2022]

¶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 16.2.2021 and 28.9.2018 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶21

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

¶22

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶24

34-CPGoyal/-

Anita v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita v. State of Rajasthan

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

State Vs Kailash and Ors.

Ruchika Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil Vs State of Rajasthan

Vachna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chanda Kunwar Vs Ramsingh

Himmat Singh Chundawat Vs Madan Singh Rathore