A revision petition against conviction under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonour was resolved after the parties settled; the Court verified the compromise and compensation payment and acquitted the petitioner.
Impugned conviction and appellate orders quashed; petitioner acquitted in terms of 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:2889]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 668/2012
Mangal Singh son of Chhagna Rawat resident of opposite Central Girls School, Purani Mandi, Ajmer
(Presently in custody at Central Jail, Ajmer)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
----Complainant-Respondent
-----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Mathur, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Public Prosecutor None present
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order
17/01/2024
By way of filing this revision petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt. 30.01.2010 passed by Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ajmer (South), in Criminal Case No.503/2009, whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted the petitioner for offence u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act & sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment & had also ordered that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo a sentence of six months simple imprisonment. The petitioner had also challenged the judgment dt.30.06.2012 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.2, Ajmer, in Criminal Appeal No.44/2011 (38/2010), whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the appeal, has confirmed the conviction awarded by ld. Magistrate & modified the sentence from one year to three months
[2024:RJ-JP:2889]
[CRLR-668/2012]
(2 of 3)
simple imprisonment while maintaining the order of compensation amount thereof.
Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the respondent filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before the learned trial Court. The incident relates to a cheque purportedly given by petitioner in 2002, which on presentation in 2005 was dishonoured due to insufficient funds & dissimilarity of signature. The trial Court had convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of one year 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 & modifying the sentence awarded by the ld. Magistrate.
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.
Heard. Perused the material made available on record as well as compromise arrived at between the parties.
In compliance of the order passed by this Court today i.e. 17.01.2024, the both parties have appeared in person before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Advocate for the complainant has not appeared. Complainant himself has appeared, while submitting his Adhar Card & identified by Mr. Aditya Mathur, Advocate. Registrar (Judicial) has verified & attested the compromise alongwith affidavits dt.15.10.2012 arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which is taken on record.
[2024:RJ-JP:2889]
[CRLR-668/2012]
(3 of 3)
As per compromise alongwith the affidavits of the parties dt.15.10.2012, complainant/respondent has entered into a settlement/ agreement & received a sum of Rs.60,000/- cash & remaining Rs.60,000/- has been deposited in the trial Court. The complainant 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 has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise alongwith affidavits is a clear proof thereof.
The dispute is inter-se in between the parties and does not affect the society at large. The complainant/respondent has now entered into a compromise with the present petitioner.
Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just & proper to acquit the petitioner from the charges and allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
Consequently, the present revision petition stand disposed of, in terms of compromise. The impugned orders passed by the Courts below are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
ASHOK-AD/142
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a conviction under Section 138 NI Act should be quashed and the accused acquitted upon amicable compromise between complainant and accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mangal Singh
Rajesh Kumar Mittal
State of Rajasthan
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
