Bhanwar Chaudhary Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1157 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 22/2021
                                In
           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.370/2019

Bhanwar Chaudhary Son of Shri Madan Lal, Proprietor M/s New
Chaudhary Enterprises, 306 City Centre Sansar Chandra Road
Jaipur. (At Present Central Jail Jaipur.)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, through PP
2.     M/s Industrial Sales And Manufacturing Comapny,
       13(B) ,moti Lal Atal Road, Jaipur Through Partner Shri
       Deepak Bhargava.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh through VC For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bhargava

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order

03/02/2021

1. The matter comes up on application for substitution of

compromise and allowing extension of time in compliance of order

dated 27.02.2019 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.370/2019.

2. It is contended by counsel for the applicant/petitioner that

Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in National Defence Fund, Government

of India within four weeks of passing of the order. However, the

cheque paid to the complainant was dishonoured. Now parties

have entered into fresh compromise. Some amount has been paid

by demand draft. Cheque has already been paid to the

complainant. It is also contended by counsel for the

applicant/petitioner that applicant/petitioner has issued cheque of

Rs.14 lac for 25.05.2021 and another cheque of Rs.1,75,000/- for

(2 of 2) [CRLMA-22/2021]

15.03.2021. It is also contended that in view of fresh compromise

arrived at between the parties the order dated 27.02.2019 be

modified and the period of payment of cheque be extended and

petitioner who has been taken in custody in pursuance of the

impugned order, be set at liberty.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the criminal misc.

application.

4. Counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact of

entering into fresh compromise and has no objection to the

extension of time of payment of disputed amount.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. In view of fact that fresh compromise has been arrived at

between the parties and also that offence under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable, even after

passing of the final order, this Court deems it proper to modify the

order dated 27.02.2019. The impugned judgment and order

passed by the Court below is set aside, subject to the honouring of

the cheque(s) paid by the petitioner to the complainant. However,

if the cheque(s) paid by the petitioner are dishonoured, the

judgment of the Court below would again stand revived and would

be executable.

7. In view of fresh compromise arrived at between the parties,

the time for payment of the cheque amount is extended upto

30.06.2021 and the order passed by the Court below is set aside.

8. Criminal Misc. Application is accordingly, allowed.

9. However, petitioner be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted

in any other case.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

HEENA/54

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)