Gajendra v. Lokesh
Case brief
What is this about?
Allowing a revision petition for offences under the Negotiable Instrument Act, a bench held that a compromise had been reached between parties, and quashed impugned convictions and orders.
What did the court decide?
Impugned orders dated 28.9.2022 and 22.4.2016 quashed and set aside; Petitioner acquitted.
What the court decided
[2023/RJJD/002108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1568/2022
Gajendra S/o Tulsiram, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Upli Oadan Ps Nathdwara Dist. Rajsamand
----Petitioner
| Versus |
|---|
Lokesh S/o Tilkesh, R/o Vallabhpura Ps Nathdwara Dist. Rajsamand
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Palash Wadhwani |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment
24/01/2023
The present cr. revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.9.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Rajsamand in Cr. Appeal No.32/2021 whereby the learned appellate court rejected the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed by the order dated 22.4.2016 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdawara, District Rajsamand in Regular Criminal Case No.238/2009 whereby the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sentenced him for two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.9,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision petition should be disposed of on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Gajendra S/o Tulsiram
- respondent
Lokesh S/o Tilkesh
Coram
Madan Gopal Vyas
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/1568/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court