Allowed

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/O Shri Shyam Singh Rawat v. Satbir Singh S/O Shri Gurucharan Singh

Rajasthan HC8 Apr 2024CRLR/488/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition where the parties settled a cheque dishonour dispute. The court quashed the conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act, citing compoundability under Section 147, while imposing cost for delay as per Damodar S. Prabhu.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act quashed; accused acquitted; cost imposed on petitioner.

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/O Shri Shyam Singh Rawat Vs Satbir… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 488/2020

¶3

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/o Shri Shyam Singh Rawat, R/o 499, Katewa Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner/Accused

¶5

Versus

¶6

Satbir Singh S/o Shri Gurucharan Singh, R/o B-83, Gautam Marg, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent-Complainant

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Kalwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Gurjar

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

08/04/2024

¶12

The instant revision petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2019 (1586/2019) affirming the judgment dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Complaint Case No. 348/2018 whereby the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act of 1881’) and was sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,20,000/-, out of which the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been awarded to the complainant-respondent and amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been ordered to be deposited in Treasury/Government Funds and in default of payment of amount,

¶13

[CRLR-488/2020]

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

the petitioner was directed to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment.

¶16

Briefly stated, facts of the case, are that the petitioner was prosecuted for committing offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. After completion of trial, he was found guilty and thus, was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. The judgment of conviction was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a criminal appeal but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.01.2020, hence the present revision petition has been preferred before this Court.

¶17

During pendency of this petition, the parties have entered into a compromise and settled the dispute amicably. A copy of the compromise dated 27.03.2024 has been placed on record. The parties have resolved the dispute and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent and has satisfied the complainant-respondent. As per Section 147 of the NI Act, the offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is compoundable without taking permission of the Court. Thus, it is jointly prayed that the judgment of sentence and conviction as well as the order passed in the appeal be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record and gone through the judgments as well as the compromise deed wherein it is recited that the parties have resolved their dispute amiably and the complainant does not wish to continue the proceedings. Since the precious time of the Court has been wasted in the entire criminal proceedings and now the parties have arrived at a compromise at this belated stage of

¶18

(3 of 4) [CRLR-488/2020]

¶19

revision petition, therefore, it is appropriate to impose cost of proceedings upon the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the statutory provisions in this regard, the revision petition is allowed.

¶21

The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 11.09.2019 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Complaint Case No.348/2018 and the judgment dated 06.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 134/2019 (1586/2019) are quashed and set aside. The accused petitioner is acquitted of all the charges.

¶22

However, since the dispute has been resolved after a long lapse of time and the precious time of the Court has been spent by the parties, thus, in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed

¶23

Babalal H. reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907, it is deemed appropriate to impose the cost of 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 15,000/- with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur (RSLSA).

¶24

It is further made clear that if the cost is not deposited by the petitioner, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court shall be restored without reference to the Court.

¶25

The petitioner is in judicial custody, he be released from the jail forthwith if not warranted in any other criminal case, subject

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CRLR-488/2020]

¶28

to the condition that prior to release, he deposits the aforesaid amount with the RSLSA.

¶29

The compromise dated 27.03.2024 is ordered to be retained on record of this revision petition.

¶30

The record of the trial Court be sent back.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Ashu/230

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/O Shri Shyam Singh Rawat v. Satbir Singh S/O Shri Gurucharan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh Rawat S/O Shri Shyam Singh Rawat v. Satbir Singh S/O Shri Gurucharan Singh

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

Jitendra S/O Shri Prabhulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash S/O Shri Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Kumar S/O Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganga Ram Son of Shri Govind Ram by Caste Ahir Vs State of

Gopal Vs Jawahar Singh and Ors.

Mohan Singh and Ors. Vs State