Quashed

Mukh Ram v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2022CRLR/927/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows the petitioner's application to take a compromise deed on record. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court allowed the underlying criminal revision petition, quashing the conviction and sentence despite the initial order imposing imprisonment and compensation.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition is allowed; orders dated 7.7.2017 and 2.6.2016 are quashed and set aside.

Mukh Ram Vs State and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 927/2017

¶4

Mukh Ram S/o Sh. Jetha Ram, By Caste Jakhar Jat, R/o Village Panditawali, Tehsi Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh. At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Hanumangarh

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Its P.p.

¶8

Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Hakam Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Lakkhuwali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. BS Sandhu
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. RS Mankad

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

12/01/2022

IA No.1/2019 :

For the reasons stated, the application seeking taking on record the compromise between the parties, is allowed.

¶16

The compromise deed is taken on record.

¶17

SB Cr. Revision Petition No.927/2017 :

¶18

The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7.7.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in cr. appeal no.15/2016 affirming the judgment and order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case No. 419/2013 whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLR-927/2017]

¶21

Section 138 of the NI Act to one year simple imprisonment with a direction to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.

¶22

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 parties by entering into a compromise. In this regard, the petitioner has also submitted an application seeking to take on record the said compromise, which has been allowed by this Court today itself.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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 7.7.2017 and 2.6.2016 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶26

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶27

64-CPGoyal/-

Mukh Ram v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukh Ram v. State and Anr.

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

Rajendra Tak Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep @ Deepu Vs State

Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhuta Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Balkaran Singh Vs State

Deepak Jain Vs Neelam Jain