Allowed

Parmeshwar Son of Shri Mohan Lal v. Ramkiran Son of Kesri Lal

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2025CRLR/1939/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition against conviction under Section 138 NI Act on the basis of a compromise between the parties. The Court quashed the lower court judgments, acquitted the petitioner, directed his release from jail, and granted exemption from depositing costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of conviction, acquittal on compromise, release from jail, and exemption from costs.

Parmeshwar Son of Shri Mohan Lal Vs Ramkiran Son of Kesri… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46263]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1939/2025

¶4

Parmeshwar Son Of Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Vijay Nagar Colony, Shanti Bhawan, Chhatwas Ki Gali, Beebanwan Road, Bundi Rajasthan (At Present Confined in District Jail Bundi, Rajasthan)

¶5

----Accused Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramkiran Son Of Kesri Lal, Resident Of Kshatriy School Ke Samne Wali Gali, Bharat Nagar, Bundi (Rajasthan)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Liyakat Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary, Advocate

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶11

Order

¶12

17/11/2025

¶13

By way of present revision petition under Section 438 readwith Section 442 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 20.7.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No. 152/2023 (Parmeshwar Versus Ramkiran), whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and order dated 29.7.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bundi in Regular Criminal Case No. 1199/2018 (Ramkiran Versus Parmeshwar) convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo 6 months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,26,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 month’s simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.

[2025:RJ-JP:46263]

[CRLR-1939/2025]

(2 of 4)

At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s wife and the respondent-complainant have entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire amount has been received by the respondent-complainant. The original compromise has been annexed with the petition. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 6.9.2025. He has, therefore, prayed that the original compromise may be taken on record and on the basis of compromise, the revision petition may also be allowed, the judgments passed by the courts below may be set aside and the petitioner be set at liberty.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not disputed the factum of said compromise. He, on instructions, of the respondent-complainant has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the respondent-complainant and he does not want any further proceeding in this matter. He has, thus, submitted that the respondent-complainant has no objection, if the original compromise is taken on record, revision petition is also allowed on the basis of compromise and the petitioner is set at liberty.

¶19

Today, the respondent complainant is present in person before this Court. His presence has been marked in the file, his signature has been obtained on the Court’s order sheet and he has been identified by his counsel.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made oral prayer for grant of exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. He has submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, who is facing financial crisis. On account of his poor economic condition, the petitioner has anyhow arranged the money and paid to the

¶21

(3 of 4) [CRLR-1939/2025]

¶22

[2025:RJ-JP:46263]

¶23

complainant in view of the compromise. He has also submitted that if any cost is imposed on the petitioner in relation to the compromise, it would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost.

¶24

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record.

¶25

From perusal of record, it reveals that the petitioner’s wife and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire money has been paid to the respondent-complainant and the respondent-complainant expressed his desire that this revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise and the petitioner be set at liberty.

¶26

As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to dispose of the revision petition on the basis of compromise. Further, looking to the poor financial condition of the accused petitioner, this Court finds that it would be just and proper to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost.

¶27

Consequently, the original compromise annexed with the petition is taken on record, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments dated 20.7.2024 and 29.7.2022 passed by the courts below are quashed and set aside. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and accused-petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of compromise. The petitioner is also exempted from depositing the cost.

[2025:RJ-JP:46263]

[CRLR-1939/2025]

(4 of 4)

Since the petitioner is presently confined in jail, the jail authorities are directed to release the accused-petitioner from jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

¶32

The petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 481 of BNSS before the concerned trial court within four weeks from the date of his release, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment/order or on grant of leave, the petitioner, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months.

¶33

Office is directed to send release order along with a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance immediately. A copy of this order along with records be also sent to the trial court forthwith.

¶34

Since the revision petition has been allowed on the basis of compromise, no order is required to be passed on the suspension of sentence application and the same stands disposed of accordingly.

¶35

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶36

DK/89

Parmeshwar Son of Shri Mohan Lal v. Ramkiran Son of Kesri Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmeshwar Son of Shri Mohan Lal v. Ramkiran Son of Kesri Lal

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

Sukhdev Choudhary S/O Surja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Sadik Son of Abdul Hafeej Vs State of Rajasthan

Dayal Vijayvargiya Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Vijayvargiya Vs Ramesh Singh Son of Late Shri Jagannath Singh

Asif Son of Sultan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Son of Hiralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Yadram Gurjar S/O Pyar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan