Petitioners convicted under Section 138 NI Act, upheld in appeal, filed revision after 295 days' delay. Parties settled; complainant received full cheque amount and verified compromise. Court imposed Rs.25,000 cost for delaying settlement, allowed revision, quashed convictions and acquitted petitioners.
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:8278]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 271/2024
At Present Confined In Judicial Custody At District Jail
Neemrana Behror)
----Accused-Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Public Prosecutor Mr. Niraj Kumar Yadav, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order
19/02/2024 :
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking condonation of delay in fling the present revision petition.
For the reasons & grounds mentioned therein, the application is allowed. The delay of 295-days in filing the present revision petition is condoned.
The revision petition is taken on the Board for hearing.
[2024:RJ-JP:8278]
[CRLR-271/2024]
(2 of 4)
By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners has challenged the judgment dt.09.06.2022 passed by Court of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Neemrana, Alwar, in Criminal Original Case No.23/147/21, whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioners for commission of offence punishable u/s.138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced them to undergo one year simple imprisonment and has also ordered that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- to complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.23.01.2023 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Behrod District Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2022, 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 petitioners had issued two cheques one amounting to Rs.8,00,000/- & another Rs.6,04,375/- to complainant/company, which on presentation, were dishonoured due to ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant/company had filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act. before the trial Court. A legal notice was also served upon the petitioners. The trial Court had convicted the petitioners for the alleged offence & sentenced them to undergo maximum period of one year simple imprisonment alongwith fine. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, the petitioners 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-petitioners, contends that now the parties have entered into a
[2024:RJ-JP:8278]
[CRLR-271/2024]
(3 of 4)
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 petitioners be acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
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.
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 petitioners.
In compliance of the order dated 16.02.2024 passed by this Court, complainant/respondent No.2 has appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. The petitioners were represented by his Counsel as the petitioner is confined in jail. 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.13.02.2024, complainant/ respondent No.2 has entered into a settlement/agreement with the petitioners and received complete cheque 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 duly accepted by the complainant, the matter should be compounded and the accused be acquitted.
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JP:8278]
[CRLR-271/2024]
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.25,000/- be imposed upon the petitioners. The petitioners shall deposit the above-said cost in the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of one month from the date of his release and submit the receipt to this Court.
Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to acquit the petitioners from the charges and allow the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed . The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioners are acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
The petitioner, namely Jaideep Kaushik is said to be in judicial custody. He shall be released from the prison forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
List alongwith compliance report on 19.03.2024.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J.
Ashok-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 138 NI Act should be quashed on basis of compromise between parties after trial and appeal.
Whether delay of 295 days in filing revision petition should be condoned.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Manav Surgical Bhawani Market (Proprietor Jaideep Kaushik)
Jaideep Kaushik
State of Rajasthan
Nippon Steel Pipe India Pvt. Ltd.
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
