Quashed

Parmanand Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena v. Prakash Saini S/O Bahnwar Lal Saini

Rajasthan HC9 Dec 2025CRLR/2224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench Criminal Revision Petition allowing condonation of delay, quashing a cheque-bounce conviction due to amicable settlement between parties, compounding the offence, acquitting the petitioner, and granting release from jail.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition allowed, judgments quashed, offence compounded, accused acquitted, and petitioner directed to be released to furnish bail bonds.

Parmanand Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena Vs Prakash… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:50007]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2224/2025

¶4

Parmanand Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o- 19 Hanuman Basti Behind Rural Police Line, Near Kale Hanuman Temple, Amer Road, Jalmahal, Jaipur. (Presently Confined At Central Jail Ghatgate Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Prakash Saini S/o Bahnwar Lal Saini, R/o House No. 9 Govindpuri East New Ramgarh Mode Amer Road Jaipur, Rajasthan Under Police Station Brahmpuri.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Krishan Chander Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

09/12/2025

¶13

At the outset, the matter was taken up for hearing on application (IA No.917/2025) under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶14

In the matter, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 24.01.2024 passed by Special Judge (Sati Nivaran Case) and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Appeal No.923/2019 whereby the Appellate Court maintained the judgment dated 09.05.2019 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Case

[2025:RJ-JP:50007]

[CRLR-2224/2025]

(2 of 3)

No.1254/2012 by which the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’) and sentenced with one year S.I. and compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 357 (3) of Cr.P.C.

¶19

On 05.12.2025 both the parties expressed that they have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise, therefore, this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 directed the accused-petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- before Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur in the light of judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal

¶20

H. (2010) 5 SCC 663.

¶21

As per office report, the petitioner has deposited cost of Rs.10,00/- vide receipt no.0074 Book No.016567 dated 08.12.2025. The compromise affidavit dated 08.12.2025 submitted by the parties have been read over to the parties and counsels accepted it to be correct.

¶22

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both parties and have gone through material available on record.

¶23

From perusal of the record, it reveals that the parties have settled their dispute amicably by way of compromise and the accused-petitioner has deposited the cost of Rs.10,000/- on 08.12.2025.

¶24

As per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:50007]

[CRLR-2224/2025]

dispose of the revision petition on the basis of amicable settlement.

¶29

Consequently, the original compromise annexed with the petition is taken on record, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments dated 24.01.2024 and 09.05.2019 passed by learned both the courts below are hereby quashed and set aside. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compounded and accused/ petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the basis of compromise.

¶30

The petitioner is presently confined in jail. The petitioner be released, if not required in any other case and it is directed that in view of provision under Section 481 of BNSS, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court within four weeks which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of SLP being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the petitioner on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The application for suspension of sentence is also disposed of in view of this order.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶33

Arun/57

Parmanand Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena v. Prakash Saini S/O Bahnwar Lal Saini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena v. Prakash Saini S/O Bahnwar Lal Saini

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

Shivam Shankhwal Son of Shri Harishchandra Shankhwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bablu S/O Gedaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rafiq @ Raffi S/O Jafruddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Aas Mohammad S/O Malkhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Gabbar S/O Sh. Hansraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Mithun S/O Late Shri Sugan Vs State of Rajasthan