Allowed

Mahendra Nath v. Harshdeep Singh

Rajasthan HC2 Nov 2023CRLR/581/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition filed to quash convictions and sentences under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court found that the parties had executed a compromise deed settling the dispute and the compensation amount. Consequently, the impugned judgment and conviction were quashed, and the petitioner was acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and order of sentence were quashed and set aside; petitioner acquitted; compromise deed made part of the order.

Mahendra Nath Vs Harshdeep Singh — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37492]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 581/2023

¶4

Mahendra Nath S/o Prem Nath, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Tibbi At Present House No. 30 Rcp Colony Hanumangarh Junction Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Harshdeep Singh S/o Lekhveer Singh, R/o Dhankawali Dhani Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achala Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

02/11/2023

¶13

The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.09/2019 whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.481/2016 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and he was directed to pay Rs.1,35,000/- as compensation to the respondent in default, to further undergo sentence of three months simple imprisonment.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a compromise deed executed between the son of the petitioner and

[2023:RJ-JD:37492]

[CRLR-581/2023]

(2 of 3)

the complainant. It is recited in the compromise deed dated 26.09.2023 that the complainant has received the amount in question i.e. Rs.1,35,000/-. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, which is compoundable in nature and as the parties have arrived at compromise, thus nothing survives for consideration in this revision petition, therefore, the judgments passed by both the courts below may be quashed and set aside.

¶19

Mr. Nishant Motsara, learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the fact that the parties have arrived at a compromise and the same has already been placed on record. Complainant- respondent has received entire amount towards the cheque in question. There is no outstanding amount or any dispute regarding payment is pending between the parties, therefore, the revision petition may be decided in the light of compromise dated 26.09.2023. 4. Heard counsel for the parties, perused the compromise dated 26.09.2023 and record available before the Court. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made above and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it fit to allow the instant Criminal Revision in terms of the aforesaid memo of compromise. 6. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Regular Case No.481/2016 and the judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Appeal No.09/2019 are hereby

¶20

[2023:RJ-JD:37492]

¶21

[CRLR-581/2023]

¶22

quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. The Memo of compromise dated 26.09.2023 signed by both the parties, shall form part of this order. However, the relationship between the parties will be governed by the terms of the compromise. The petitioner is further directed to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- before the District Legal Service Authority, Sri Ganganagar within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to say that in case of failure of deposition of the amount before the DLSA, Sri Ganganagar within the stipulated period, the judgments of the Courts below shall be rejuvenated. 7. Stay petition and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶23

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶24

153-Mamta/-

Mahendra Nath v. Harshdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Nath v. Harshdeep Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Pareek Vs State

Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Phuliya @ Phulya Vs State

Mahendra Singh Vs State

Kanta Vs State of Rajasthan

Naseer Khan Vs State