Quashed

Indraj Kumawat S/O Sh. Krishna Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2025CRLR/1761/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 NI Act. Court condoned delay and quashed conviction/sentence after parties compromised, relying on Supreme Court's Rajinder Singh order.

What did the court decide?

Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.2015 quashed and set aside. Accused released from custody. Additional amounts deposited for Advocates' Welfare Fund.

Indraj Kumawat S/O Sh. Krishna Kumawat Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1761/2024

¶4

Indraj Kumawat S/o Sh. Krishna Kumawat, R/o Indra Colony Bijainagar Presently Tehsil Bijainagar Police Station Bijainagar District Ajmer

¶5

----Accused Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Buddhilal Jain, R/o Pragya College Ke Samne, Bijainagar, Tehsil Bijainagar District Ajmer (Raj)

¶10

----Complainant /Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anirudh Tyagi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, learned PP
	Mr. Arpit Srivastava for complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶13

Order

¶14

15/01/2025

¶15

An application (IA No.1051/2024) has been filed by the accused applicant/petitioner under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay occurred in filing the criminal revision petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the accused applicant/ petitioner submits that the parties have entered into a compromise by way of an agreement dated 18.10.2024 and the complete amount as ordered by the learned trial court has been paid to the complainant/ respondent. Counsel further submits that

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

[CRLR-1761/2024]

(2 of 8)

the delay has occurred because of some confusion and misunderstanding due to talks of compromise between the parties.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused applicant/ petitioner and more particularly the fact that parties have entered into the compromise and the amount has already been paid by the accused applicant/ petitioner to the complainant/ respondent, this Court deems just and proper to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid criminal revision petition.

¶22

Accordingly, the application for condition of delay is allowed and the delay occurred in filing the criminal revision petition is condoned.

¶23

The instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijaynagar, District Ajmer (for short ‘the learned trial court’), in Criminal Original Case No.505/2011, by which the accused petitioner has been convicted for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year Simple Imprisonment and also with a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- and in default thereof he has been directed to undergo one month additional simple imprisonment which

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

[CRLR-1761/2024]

(3 of 8)

has been upheld vide judgment dated 04.05.2019 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) [For short ‘the learned Appellate Court’] in Criminal Appeal No.53/2015.

¶28

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise through an agreement dated 18.10.2024 filed by the complainant/ respondent, which is duly notarized by the Notary Public, which is available on the record, in which it has been mentioned that he has received the complete amount from the accused petitioner. It has been further mentioned in the affidavit that neither any amount is due against the accused petitioner nor any dispute remains with him and he does not want to proceed further against the accused petitioner and wants to settle the matter amicably on the basis of the compromise. It has also been mentioned by the complainant /respondent in the aforesaid agreement that if the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court which has been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court are quashed and set aside then he has no objection.

¶29

Both the learned counsels in support of their submissions have placed reliance upon the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajinder Singh Vs. Krishan Dutt, Criminal Appeal

(4 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

[CRLR-1761/2024]

No.__ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.___ of 2025) (@ Diary No.41934/2024),_ which is reproduced as under:-

¶34

“Delay condoned.

¶35

Leave granted.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. On account of dishonor of cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/-

¶37

(Rupees two lakh), proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were drawn against the appellant. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 28.12.2021 convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/(Rupees four lakh). After the aforesaid judgment and order has attained finality, it appears that the parties entered into a compromise on 27.05.2024 whereunder the appellant undertook to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees four lakh), out of which Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh) was deposited before the Trial Court and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh) was paid in cash to the first party on the date of the Compromise Deed itself. It was also agreed in the compromise that the first party will have no objection if the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant is set aside.

(5 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

[CRLR-1761/2024]

In pursuance to the aforesaid compromise, the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) deposited by the appellant before the Trial Court is said to have been released in favour of the first party and the balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh) has also been paid.

¶42

Accordingly, the submission is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside, as agreed between the parties.

¶43

In the facts and circumstances of the case, on the appellant’s offering to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 28.12.2021 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh is hereby set aside.

¶44

Out of the amount so deposited, Rs. 50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand) shall be released in favour of the Advocates’ Welfare Fund and the remaining Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand) to the Supreme Court Advocateson-Record Association.

¶45

The present appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶46

In the light of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

[CRLR-1761/2024]

(6 of 8)

Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), and on instructions from the accused petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has offered and agreed to make payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- in addition to the amount paid to the complainant/ respondent as directed by the learned trial court and prayed to quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence in view of the compromise arrived at in between both the parties and also in the light of the order/ observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned case.

¶51

Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case, and more particularly the fact of compromise between the parties and the no objection submitted by the complainant as regards quashing and setting the conviction of the accused petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) and so also the fact that the accused petitioner in view of the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) , has offered and agreed to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- in addition to the amount paid to the complainant/respondent as directed by the trial court, this Court so as to meet the ends of justice and having regard to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), deems just and proper to

¶52

(7 of 8) [CRLR-1761/2024]

¶53

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

¶54

quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijaynagar, District Ajmer in Criminal Original Case No.505/2011, which has been upheld vide judgment dated 04.05.2019 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.53/2015.

¶55

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vijaynagar, District Ajmer in Criminal Original Case No.505/2011, which has been upheld vide judgment dated 04.05.2019 by the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.53/2015, are quashed and set aside. The accused petitioner shall be released from the judicial custody, if not required in any other case.

¶56

In view of the statement of the counsel for the accused petitioner, on instructions from the accused petitioner as regards of depositing the additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in addition to the amount already paid to the complainant/ respondent, as directed by the learned trial court, the accused petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh) in the Office of Bar Association,

¶57

(8 of 8) [CRLR-1761/2024]

¶58

[2025:RJ-JP:2021]

¶59

Rajasthan, Jaipur and also a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Advocates’ Clerks Association, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, within a period of four weeks from today and receipt thereof shall be filed in the registry.

¶60

In case the accused petitioner fails to deposit the aforesaid amount as offered and agreed by his counsel, on his instructions, within the stipulated time, the petition filed by the accused petitioner shall stand revived.

¶61

Since the main petition has been disposed of, the application for suspension of sentence and other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶62

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶63

Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar/119

Indraj Kumawat S/O Sh. Krishna Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indraj Kumawat S/O Sh. Krishna Kumawat 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

Akil S/O Hakam @ Gaina Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Chomu Jaipur Vs Anil Luhadia and Ors.

Jitendra @ Jeetu S/O Late Shri Uday Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Viplav Goyal Son of Rajkumar Goyal Vs Shiv Kumar Garg Son of Suraj Narayan Garg

Sushil Kumar S/O Ranglal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdev Kadiwal S/O Kheem Singh Vs State of Rajashtan