Mukh Ram vs State And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 655 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 927/2017

Mukh Ram S/o Sh. Jetha Ram, By Caste Jakhar Jat, R/o Village Panditawali, Tehsi Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh. At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Hanumangarh

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its P.p.

2. Gurcharan Singh S/o Sh. Hakam Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Lakkhuwali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh Raj.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. BS Sandhu
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. RS Mankad

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

12/01/2022

IA No.1/2019:

For the reasons stated, the application seeking taking on

record the compromise between the parties, is allowed.

The compromise deed is taken on record.

SB Cr. Revision Petition No.927/2017:

The present revision petition has been filed against the

judgment dated 7.7.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions

Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in cr. appeal no.15/2016 affirming the

judgment and order dated 2.6.2016 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case No. 419/2013

whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under

(2 of 2) [CRLR-927/2017]

Section 138 of the NI Act to one year simple imprisonment with a

direction to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the

pendency of the present revision petition, the entire amount has

been paid to the complainant. He further submits that the dispute

of the non-payment of the amount has been settled between the

parties by entering into a compromise. In this regard, the

petitioner has also submitted an application seeking to take on

record the said compromise, which has been allowed by this Court

today itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Laxmi

Narayan & ors. Reported in AIR 2019 SC 1296 and Damodar S.

Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663.

The fact of compromise is not disputed by the counsel for the

complainant-respondent.

In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and

the compromise having been entered into between the parties, the

present revision petition is allowed and the orders dated 7.7.2017

and 2.6.2016 are hereby quashed and set aside.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 64-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)