Disposed

Sunil Jain S/O Bhagchand Jain v. Smt. Mamta W/O Virendra Kumar Mansinghka

Rajasthan HC9 Jan 2025CRLR/95/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected revisions arising from a Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour conviction. Following a notarised compromise between the parties with complainant's no objection, and following a Supreme Court precedent permitting settlement-based quashing with a charitable deposit, the High Court quashed both trial and appellate convictions and sentences; the complainant withdrew his revision.

What did the court decide?

Convictions and sentences dated 06.08.2018 and 28.09.2022 quashed subject to deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- with Rajasthan High Court Bar Association within four weeks; complainant's revision dismissed as

Sunil Jain S/O Bhagchand Jain Vs Smt. Mamta W/O Virendra… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1695/2022

¶4

Smt. Mamta W/o Virendra Kumar Mansinghka, Director M/s. Kilol Finance And Investment Private Limited B-147, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur And 1-30, Janwary Marg, Delhi At Present Plot No. 41-42, Shree Vihar Colony, Jln Marg, Jaipur

¶5

M/s. Kilol Finance And Investment Private Limited, B-147, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Director Smt. Mamta W/o Virendra Kumar Mansinghka Managing Director

¶6

----Accused Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Represented Through Public Prosecutor

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Bhagchand Jain, R/o Nai Dhanmandi, Kota Partner M/s. Bhagchand Jain And Sons 119 New Dhanmandi, Kota

¶11

----Complainant Non-petitioner

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 95/2023

¶14

Sunil Jain S/o Bhagchand Jain, Address Nae Dhanmandi, Kota, Partner, M/s Bhagchand Jain And Sons, 119, Nae Dhanmandi, Kota.

¶15

----Complainant Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

Smt. Mamta W/o Virendra Kumar Mansinghka, Director, M/s Kilol Finance And Investment Private Limited, B-147, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur And 1-30, January Marg, Delhi. (At Present Plot No. 41-42, Shree Vihar Colony, Jlnmarg, Jaipur).

¶18

M/s Kilol Finance And Investment Private Limited, B-147, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Director, Smt. Mamta Wife Of Virendra Kumar Mansinghka, Managing Director.

¶19

….Accused respondents

(2 of 10)

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor (Pp).

¶24

Virendra Kumar Mansinghka S/o Mahaveer Prasad Mansinghka, Managing Director M/s Mansinghka Oil Products Limited, Govindpur Baawdi, District Bundi, R/o B-147 (A) Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur And 1- 30,january Marg, Delhi.

¶25

Mahaveer Prasad Mansinghka, Chairman/personal Guarantor, M/s Mansinghka Oil Products Limited, Govindpur Baawdi, District Bundi, R/o 1111-A, Rayeja Chamber, 11Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

¶26

R.n. Nimodiya S/o Moolchand Nimodiya, Director/general Manager, M/s Mansinghka Oil Products Limited, Govindpur Baawdi, District Bundi, R/o Care Of Moolchand Kanhiyalal Nimodiya, Gandhi Chowk Pachora, District Jalgaon (Maharashtra).

¶27

M/s Mansinghka Oil Products Limited, Govindpur Baawdi, District Bundi Through Its Managing Director- Virendra Kumar Mansinghka, R/o B-147, Mangal Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur.

¶28

----Proforma Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner(s)	:	Rinesh Gupta for accused petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1695/2022 and for accused respondents No.1 and 2 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 95/2023 Mr. Tribhuyvan Narayan Singh for complainant petitioner in Criminal revision Petition No. 95/2023 and for complainant non-petitioner No.2 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1695/2022
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Sandeep Pathak for respondents No. 3 and 6 in Criminal Revision Petition No.95/2023

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

09/01/2025

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

(3 of 10)

The S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1695/2022 has been filed by the accused-petitioners No.1- Smt. Mamta and No.2- M/s. Kilol Finance and Investment Private Limited under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the judgment dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Kota (Rajasthan) (Additional Charge) in Criminal Appeal CIS No.573/2018 (Smt. Mamta & Anr.) by which the criminal appeal filed by the accused petitioners was party allowed and modified while maintaining the sentence of both the petitioners. The accused petitioner No.1 has been directed to deposit Rs.51,000/- as fine within 15 days before the trial Court and in default of payment of fine she has been directed to undergo one month simple imprisonment. In case the accused petitioner No.1 fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within this period, the order of conviction passed by the trial Court shall come automatically in force. The appellate court further held that both the petitioners shall deposit jointly and severally Rs.1,50,00,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. before the trial Court within one month, which after the period of limitation of filing an appeal/revision shall be paid to the complainant non-petitioner. In default of payment of compensation, the accused petitioner No.1 has been directed to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

¶37

This criminal revision petition has also been filed by the above named accused petitioners for quashing and setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

(4 of 10)

Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.1, Kota, in CIS No.21736/14, Regular Criminal Case No.1646/2010, by which the accused petitioner No.1 has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to two years simple imprisonment. Both the petitioners have have been directed jointly and individually to deposit Rs.1,50,00,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court and further directed that the period already undergone by the petitioner No.1 in police/judicial custody shall be set off. In default of payment of compensation by the accused petitioner petitioner No.1, she has been directed to additionally undergo six months simple imprisonment.

¶42

The S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.95/2023 has been filed by the complainant-petitioner- Sunil Jain under section 397 read with section 401 CrPC with the following prayers:-

¶43

“It is therefore humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this criminal revision petition and the judgment dated 28.9.2022 (Annex.2) passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, S.No.5, Kota (Rajasthan), (Additional Charge) in Criminal Appeal CIS No. 573/2018 title as Smt. Mamta & Ors. Versus Sunil Jain & Ors. Be quash and set aside to the extent of partly allowing appeal in respect of quantum of punishment modified with fine on accused/ respondent no.:01 (Smt. Mamta) of Rs.51000/- (in words: Fifty-One Thousand Rupees only) and in case of default the one month simple imprisonment.

(5 of 10)

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

Further it is humbly prayed that the judgment dated 6.8.2018 passed by the learned Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.1 Kota in CIS No.21737/14 in Regular Criminal Case No. 1646/2010 title as Sunil Jain versus Smt. Mamta & Ors, may kindly be restored.”

¶48

At the very outset Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for both the accused (in Criminal Revision Petition No.1695/2022) submits that both the parties have entered into a compromise on 08.01.2025 on certain terms and conditions, which is duly notarized by the Notary Public, which is available on the record. In regard to compromise both the parties submitted separate affidavits dated 08.01.2025, which are duly notarized by the Notary Public, which are also available on the record, which is not opposed by Mr. Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶49

In the affidavit dated 08.01.2025 filed by the complainant it has been mentioned that if the judgments of conviction and sentence dated 06.08.2018 and 28.09.2022 passed by the learned courts below which includes the conviction of both the accused are quashed and set aside on the basis of compromise dated 08.01.2025 he has no objection and in view of the compromise between the parties and the affidavit submitted by the complainant, he seeks to withdraw the Criminal Revision Petition No.

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

(6 of 10)

95/2023.

In the affidavit dated 08.01.2025 filed by accused Smt. Mamta it has been mentioned that if the petitions pending before the Rajasthan High Court in regard to judgments dated 06.08.2018 and 28.09.2022 passed by the learned courts below, are disposed of on the basis of the compromise dated 08.01.2025 then she has no objection.

¶55

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:-

¶56

“Delay condoned.

¶57

Leave granted.

¶58

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶59

On account of dishonor of cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/(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/-

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

(7 of 10)

(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.

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

(8 of 10)

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

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

¶72

In the light of order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), on instructions, Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for both the accused has submitted and made an offer in regard to depositing a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh) in the Office of Bar Association, Rajasthan today within a period of four weeks from today and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned judgments passed by both the learned courts below, as agreed between the parties in the aforesaid compromise.

¶73

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 both the accused 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 both the accused in view of the observations and directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) , have agreed to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) in the Office of Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, this Court so as to meet the ends of

(9 of 10)

[2025:RJ-JP:1505]

[CRLR-1695/2022]

justice and having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra) , deems just and proper to quash and set aside the conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Kota (Rajasthan) (Additional Charge) in Criminal Appeal CIS No.573/2018 (Smt. Mamta & Anr.) and also the judgment dated 06.08.2018 passed by the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.1, Kota, in CIS No.21736/14, Regular Criminal Case No.1646/2010 (Sunil Jain Vs. Smt. Mamta & Ors.).

¶78

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition No. 1695/2022 filed by the accused petitioners is disposed of and aforesaid conviction and sentence of both the accused is quashed and set aside.

¶79

In view of the statement of both the accused, they are directed to deposit Rs. One Lac (apart from the money paid to the complainant) in the Office of Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur, within a period of four weeks from today and receipt thereof shall be filed in the registry.

¶80

In case both the accused fail to deposit Rs.1,00,000/as offered by their counsel, on their instructions, in the Office of Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur,

¶81

[2025:RJ-JP:1505] (10 of 10)

¶82

[CRLR-1695/2022]

¶83

within the stipulated time, both the petitions shall stand revived.

¶84

Since the main petitions have been decided, the stay application(s) and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶85

In view of the prayer made by the counsel for the complainant (petitioner in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 95/2023), the aforesaid criminal revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶86

Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected case file.

¶87

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶88

Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar

Sunil Jain S/O Bhagchand Jain v. Smt. Mamta W/O Virendra Kumar Mansinghka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Jain S/O Bhagchand Jain v. Smt. Mamta W/O Virendra Kumar Mansinghka

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

Satyendra S/O Shri Jadveer, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pyara Singh and Ors. Vs State

Jagdish Meena S/O Radhakishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar S/O Ramdayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Siraj Ahmed S/O Shri Israr Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Mehra S/O Satyanarayan Vs State of Rajasthan