Allowed

Kailash Chand Saini Son of Shri Tejaram Saini v. Dinesh Khandelwal Son of Shri Vishambar Dayal

Rajasthan HC10 May 2024CRLR/788/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 138 NI Act matter, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Upon filing a criminal revision petition, a compromise was reached where the petitioner paid compensation accepted by the complainant. The Rajasthan High Court acquitted the petitioner and allowed the revision petition based on the settlement.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed; impugned orders in conviction and sentence quashed and set aside; petitioner acquitted of charges.

Kailash Chand Saini Son of Shri Tejaram Saini Vs Dinesh… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22356]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 788/2024

¶4

Kailash Chand Saini son of Shri Tejaram Saini, Resident of Plot No 60, Shree Ram Vihar -A, Manyavas Jaipur (Raj)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dinesh Khandelwal son of Shri Vishambar Dayal, Resident of Plot No. 4, Parvati Nagar Vistar Gulab Bag Ke Samne, Marriage Garden Janpath Shyam Nagar Jaipur (Raj)

¶8

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Public Prosecutor Mr. Ashok Samoda, Advocate

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order

¶12

10/05/2024 :

¶13

Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dt.19.03.2024 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Appeal No.12/2023 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed & judgment dt.15.07.2023 passed by Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Regular Complaint Case No.02/2019 (632/2018) filed by the complainant convicting the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- & in default thereof, to further undergo three months additional imprisonment, has been affirmed.

¶14

Case of the prosecution is that the complainant has filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before ld. trial Court

[2024:RJ-JP:22356]

[CRLR-788/2024]

(2 of 3)

alleging therein that in order to make the payment of loan, the petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, which on presentation was dishonored & returned with the remarks of “Account Closed.” The trial Court has convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of one year simple imprisonment alongwith compensation. The appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶19

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioner are that the petitioner was on bail during trial & appeal. During pendency of revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled and now the complainant does not wish to continue the matter. 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 in terms of compromise.

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record.

¶21

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.

¶22

In compliance of the order passed by this Court today, both the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of compromise & identified by their Counsel. The cost of Rs.10,000/- has also been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0075. Registrar (Judicial) has verified & attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which is taken on record.

[2024:RJ-JP:22356]

[CRLR-788/2024]

(3 of 3)

As per compromise dt.04.05.2024, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled in the spirit of Lok Adalat. The petitioner has given Rs.30,000/- in cash and a cheque amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant. The complainant does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him in terms of compromise.

¶27

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.

¶28

In the present case, the amount of compensation has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise is a clear proof thereof.

¶29

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.

¶30

Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed in terms of compromise. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

¶31

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶33

ASHOK/

Kailash Chand Saini Son of Shri Tejaram Saini v. Dinesh Khandelwal Son of Shri Vishambar Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand Saini Son of Shri Tejaram Saini v. Dinesh Khandelwal Son of Shri Vishambar Dayal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramraj Vs Smt Sanjana Devi and Anr.

Devpal Son of Shri Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Goyal S/O Shri Satya Narayan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Neeraj Son of Dhani Ram Yadav, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahrukh Khan Son of Shri Saleem Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash Sharma S/O Sh. Khacchi Ram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan