Disposed

Sushil Kumar S/O Ranglal, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2025CRLR/1910/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act sought revision after conviction was affirmed in appeal. Parties compromised through a notarized affidavit recording full payment; relying on Rajinder Singh (Supreme Court), the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence subject to depositing additional amounts with bar associations.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence dated 08.11.2023 affirmed by appellate judgment dated 09.10.2024 quashed and set aside; accused to be released; additional deposits of Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.50,000 to bar associat

Sushil Kumar S/O Ranglal, Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1910/2024

¶4

Sushil Kumar S/o Ranglal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Thok Pratap, Village And Post Awar, Tehsil Kumher Then District Bharatpur, Presently District Deeg (Raj.).

¶5

----Accused Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Shyamsundar S/o Munshisingh, R/o Guljar Bagh Colony, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶10

----Complainant /Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Pawan Kumar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav learned PP
	Mr. R.K. Daga for complainant /respondent

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶13

Order

¶14

15/01/2025

¶15

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 08.11.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur (for short ‘the learned trial court’), in Regular Criminal Case No.2864/2021, 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 directed the accused petitioner to pay

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

[CRLR-1910/2024]

(2 of 7)

Rs.12,98,000/- as compensation to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, the accused petitioner has been directed to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment, which has been affirmed vide judgment dated 09.10.2024 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) [For short ‘the learned Appellate Court’] in Criminal Appeal No.230/2023.

¶20

At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise through an affidavit dated 12.12.2025 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 affidavit 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.

[CRLR-1910/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

(3 of 7)

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

¶25

“Delay condoned.

¶26

Leave granted.

¶27

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

¶28

(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

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

[CRLR-1910/2024]

(4 of 7)

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

[CRLR-1910/2024]

(5 of 7)

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

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

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

[CRLR-1910/2024]

(6 of 7)

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 quash and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur in Regular Criminal Case No.2864/2021 which has been affirmed vide judgment dated 09.10.2024 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.230/2023.

¶49

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused petitioner is disposed of in the manner that the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.4, Bharatpur in Regular Criminal Case No.2864/2021, which has been affirmed vide judgment dated 09.10.2024 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No.230/2023, are quashed and set aside. The accused petitioner who is at present in judicial custody, shall be released, if not required in any other case.

¶50

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

[2025:RJ-JP:2022]

[CRLR-1910/2024]

(7 of 7)

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, 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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

The Registry is directed to send back the record of the case to the Court concerned forthwith.

¶58

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶59

Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar/120

Sushil Kumar S/O Ranglal, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar S/O Ranglal, 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

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

Ramdev Kadiwal S/O Kheem Singh Vs State of Rajashtan