Dalu Ram Dudi vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 6692 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 375/2020

Dalu Ram Dudi S/o Shri Chima Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Kharda Mewasa Via Mathania, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State, Through P.p.

2. HDFC Bank, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. BR Bishnoi, Adv.

For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP
                                 Mr. Murli Sain, Adv. on behalf of
                                 Mr. SS Jodha, Adv.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

                           Judgment / Order

05/03/2021

This misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed

against the judgment dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned

Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby the

appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment

dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jodhpur Metropolitan

for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been affirmed and the

petitioner sentenced to undergo six months' simple imprisonment

along with fine in the sum of Rs.60,000/-.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

made a proposal to the respondent No.2 Bank for clearing all the

dues in one time settlement, which the respondent No.2 accepted

and the petitioner has deposited the entire dues with the

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-375/2020]

respondent No.2 vide demand draft No.055482 dated 20.12.2019

of Union Bank of India to the tune of Rs.2,90,500/- including the

cheque amount and the respondent No.2 Bank has issued the

settlement letter dated 30.12.2019. Counsel submits that now

there is no dispute between the respondent No.2 Bank and the

petitioner, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the petitioner by the courts below may

be set aside.

Counsel for the respondent No.2 Bank concurs the facts of

one time settlement as stated by the counsel for the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,

since the parties have settled the dispute and respondent No.2

Bank has received the entire dues amount from the petitioner 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 the 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 01.02.2017 and 18.09.2019 is hereby set

aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise/settlement subject

to deposition of cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The cost shall

be deposited by the petitioner with the Rajasthan State Legal

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-375/2020]

Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two months from

today. In case the cost is not deposited by the petitioner within

the stipulated period, the misc. petition may be listed before this

Court for passing appropriate orders.

The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. Stay petition

also stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be sent to the office of Legal Services

Authority at Jodhpur.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 195-MS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)