High Court allowed a criminal revision and acquitted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a compromise was reached and compensation accepted, imposing a cost for delayed settlement.
Impugned orders quashed; petitioner acquitted from charges; cost of Rs.5,000 imposed for delayed compromise.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:7607]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 183/2024
Nikhilesh Saini son of Shri Rajendra Kumar Saini, R/o House No. 46, Krishna Nagar, Behind Madhovilash, Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
----Complainant-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order
15/02/2024 :
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in fling the present revision petition.
For the reasons & grounds mentioned therein, the application is allowed. The delay of twenty-six days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
The revision petition is taken on the Board for hearing.
By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed by Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Case No.1358/2021, whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and has also ordered that the petitioner shall pay
[2024:RJ-JP:7607]
[CRLR-183/2024]
(2 of 4)
a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- to complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo a sentence of one month additional simple imprisonment. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 30.09.2023 passed by Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Appeal No.18/2023, whereby the ld. Judge, while dismissing the appeal, has upheld the conviction & sentence passed by the ld. Magistrate.
Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the complainantrespondent filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before the learned trial Court alleging therein that the petitioner has borrowed Rs.2,90,000/- from him & for repayment thereof, he has issued a cheque of Rs.2,90,000/-, which on presentation was dishonoured. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of six months simple imprisonment alongwith fine. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, which was also dismissed while upholding the conviction & sentence awarded by the ld. Magistrate. Hence, this revision.
In the present case, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, contends that now the parties have entered into a compromise and the dispute between them has been amicably settled. Therefore, the present petition may be allowed, the impugned orders be quashed & set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record.
[2024:RJ-JP:7607]
[CRLR-183/2024]
(3 of 4)
The dispute is inter-se in between the parties and does not affect the society at large. The complainant has now entered into a compromise with the present petitioner.
In compliance of the order dated 13.02.2024 passed by this Court, the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. He has verified & attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which has been taken on record.
As per compromise dt.15.01.2024, the complainant/ respondent No.2 has entered into a settlement/agreement with the petitioner and received complete amount and has no objection if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside, and the parties do not want to proceed further in the matter.
The aim & purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not to punish the accused but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act, in case the amount is paid and is duly accepted by the complainant, the matter should be compounded and the accused should be acquitted.
In the present case, the amount of compensation has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise is a clear proof thereof.
Since the parties have not entered into a compromise at the first opportunity available to them and waited till disposal of the trial & appeal and wasted precious judicial time of the Court, in the interest of justice, a cost of Rs.5,000/- be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit the above-said cost in the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of 15-days from the date of his release and submit the receipt to this Court.
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JP:7607]
[CRLR-183/2024]
Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to acquit the petitioner from the charges and allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
List alongwith compliance report on 05.03.2024.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.
Ashok-MH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal revision pending under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be allowed in light of a subsequent compromise between parties.
Whether the court can acquit the accused and quash conviction pending orders upon payment of compensation despite delay in compromising.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Nikhilesh Saini
State of Rajasthan
Balwan Singh
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
