Anil Agarwal S/O Prahlad Agarwal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1348 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 163/2021

Anil Agarwal S/o Prahlad Agarwal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 69,
South West Block, In Front Of Ram Mandir, Rajasthan, Proprietor
Amol Handloom Shop No. 3 Mahadeva Complex, Sidhipura, Peer
Baba Ke Pass, Churi Market, Alwar (Accused Petitioner Is In
Judicial Custody Jail Alwar)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pubic Prosecutor
2.     Yogendra Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Deep Gupta, R/o Shanti
       Bhavan Bichhu Ki Gali Alwar Ps Kotwali District Alwar
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Ms. Sweta Soni, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

08/02/2021

S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.64/2021:-

Heard.

Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

Delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 163/2021:-

This revision petition has been filed against the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.03.2019

passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases)

No.2, Alwar (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.23/21A/2018 whereby the

accused petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short "N.I. Act") for one

(2 of 2) [CRLR-163/2021]

year Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.4,20,000/- in default

of payment of fine two months additional Simple Imprisonment

was given and confirming the aforesaid judgment and order vide

order dated 01.02.2020 by the learned District & Sessions Judge

No.3, Alwar in Criminal Appeal No.40/2019 (89/19).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. It is submitted that a compromise has been arrived at

between the parties and in lieu thereof, petitioner has paid the

entire amount to complainant as per compromise and there is

nothing to recover from the accused petitioner. The compromise

has been filed which is taken on record. So, the revision petition

may be allowed.

5. Hence, in view of the above, the revision petition deserves to

be decided in the light of compromise entered between the parties

as per Section 138 of N.I. Act. Amount has been paid to

complainant-respondent No.2 Yogendra Kumar Gupta as per

agreement.

6. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner is allowed.

The conviction of the petitioner as ordered by the trial court and

confirmed by the Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The

petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him.

Petitioner who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not

required in any other case.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /156

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)