Allowed

Goardhan Das v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2024CRLR/350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside the conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act following a post-judgment compromise. The petitioner was directed to deposit 15% costs to avoid dismissal of the revision.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act are set aside subject to the deposition of 15% costs of the cheque amount within two months.

Goardhan Das Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:14365]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 350/2024

¶4

Goardhan Das S/o Kunjilal, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Near Narsingh Temple Dahga Chowk Bikaner.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Heeralal S/o Gauri Shankar, R/o Near Malva Dhora, Bheena Sher, Bikaner.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP Mr. Ashok Kumar

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

01/04/2024

¶14

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act No.2, Bikaner whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment along with fine in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the respondent No.2 has received all the amount from the

[2024:RJ-JD:14365]

[CRLR-350/2024]

(2 of 3)

petitioner and does not want to proceed in the matter. The copy of the compromise dated 23.02.2024 is already available on record. It is stated that since the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be set aside.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent No.2 concurs the fact of compromise dated 23.02.2024 arrived at between the parties.

¶21

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant respondent No.2 has accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of dispute on the satisfaction of the complainant and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663 , the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra).

¶22

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act vide judgments dated 16.01.2023 and 12.02.2024 is hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to deposition of cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two months from

[2024:RJ-JD:14365]

[CRLR-350/2024]

(3 of 3)

today. In case the cost is not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period, the revision petition may be listed before this Court for passing appropriate orders.

¶27

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶28

A copy of this order be sent to the office of Legal Services Authority at Jodhpur.

¶29

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶30

40-MS/-

Goardhan Das v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Goardhan Das v. State of Rajasthan

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

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishori S Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratnaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Lal @ Raghuveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Kumar Vs Ashok Kumar