Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Deepak Mundra vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
(1 of 3) [CRLR-879/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 879/2021
Deepak Mundra S/o Moolchand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Mundra Bhawan, B-8, Kamla Nehru Nagar, First Extension
Scheme, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jay Kishan Singhal S/o Tulsi Das, R/o H.no. 491, First B
Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RS Mankad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. NK Mundra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/10/2021
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 24.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge
Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal
No.389/2018, by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed and the judgment dated 20.08.2018 passed by the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.6, Jodhpur
Metropolitan in Criminal Regular Original Case No.638/2016
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence under Section
138 N.I. Act has been affirmed. The petitioner was sentenced to
undergo six months' simple imprisonment along with fine in the
sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner
was sentenced to undergo two months' simple imprisonment.
(2 of 3) [CRLR-879/2021]
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 the compromise
dated 27.09.2021 is already placed 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 27.09.2021 .
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 20% 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 24.05.2019 and 20.08.2018 is hereby set
aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to
deposition of cost of 20% of the cheque amount. The cost shall be
(3 of 3) [CRLR-879/2021]
deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one month from
today. In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before
the Rajasthan State 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. Stay
petition also stands decided accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
255-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
