HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 463/2021 Bhanwar Singh Chandana S/o Sh. Parig Singh Chandna, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Bhutala, Asrota Ki Bhagal, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ram Singh Gaur S/o Sh. Mod Singh Gaur, Proprietor Jai Bholenath Transport Company Losing, Tehsil Girwa, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal, Adv. through
VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP
Mr. Praveen Bhati, Adv. through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG (VACATION JUDGE) Judgment / Order 02/06/2021 This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18.02.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.43/2013 (CIS No.1206/2015), vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 19.06.2013 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.1, Udaipur in Criminal Regular Case No.5288/2009 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been affirmed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo three months' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,50,000/-.
(Downloaded on 04/06/2021 at 08:14:59 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLR-463/2021] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the respondent No.2 has received all the amount from the petitioner and does not want to proceed with the matter, therefore the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be set aside. The copy of compromise dated 30.03.2021 is already available on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concurs with the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the compromise dated 30.03.2021 .
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled their dispute and complainant respondent No.2 has accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of dispute on the satisfaction of the complainant and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra).
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment dated 18.02.2015 and 19.06.2013 is hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to deposition of cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The cost shall be (Downloaded on 04/06/2021 at 08:14:59 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLR-463/2021] deposited by the petitioner before the Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of 20 days from today. In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before the Legal Services Authority within the stipulated period, the revision petition may be listed before this Court for passing appropriate orders.
The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. Application for suspension of sentence and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act are also decided accordingly.
A copy of this order be sent to the Legal Services Authority Jodhpur.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG), VJ 66-MS/-
(Downloaded on 04/06/2021 at 08:14:59 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)