Saroj Devi Wife Of Shri Ramswaroop ... vs Amar Singh Kirad Son Of Shri Gudmal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5890 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 977/2022

Saroj Devi Wife Of Shri Ramswaroop Nawariya, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of A-556, Durbalnath Ji Ki Bagichi, Mandi
Khatikaan Chaar Darwaja Jaipur 9(Raj)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.      Amar Singh Kirad Son Of Shri Gudmal Kirad, Resident Of
        Mandi Khatikaan Outside Chaar Darwaja Ramganj Jaipur
        (Raj)
2.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Imran Khan, P.P.
                               Mr. Ravi Chirania, for the complainant
                               Mr. Gaurav Kumawat, for the
                               complainant



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                    Order

25/08/2022

The parties are present in court and they are identified by

their respective counsels. It is stated at Bar that a compromise

has been arrived at between the parties after the judgment dated

14.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the judgment dated

17.07.2018 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I.

Act Cases), No.02, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur was affirmed.

The complainant has filed a compromise dated 18.12.2021

stating that in view of the compromise, the complainant is not

inclined to proceed further in the matter.

(2 of 3) [CRLR-977/2022]

Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a

decision of Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.

Sayed Babalal H (2010(5) SCC 66).

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,

since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant had

accepted the sum towards the full and final settlement of the

cheque, 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

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed

Babalal H. (supra), the sentence awarded to the petitioner for

offence under Section 138 of NI Act is liable to be set aside.

However, as compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the

appeal preferred by the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of the case

and looking at the cheque amount involved, a cost of 5% 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 petitioner is

directed to deposit 5% of the cheque amount with the Deputy

Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within

a period of two weeks from today.

The conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the

petitioner for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act, vide the judgment dated 17.07.2018 passed by the Special

Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.02, Jaipur

Metropolitan, Jaipur as affirmed by the judgment dated as

affirmed by the judgment dated 14.08.2019 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in

criminal appeal No.639/2018 is hereby set aside on the basis of

the aforesaid compromise.

(3 of 3) [CRLR-977/2022]

This revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Accordingly, application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act stands disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

13 - RAVI KHANDELWAL

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)