Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Lakhvinder Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 September, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2/2022
Lakhvinder Singh S/o Nakshtra Singh, Aged About 45 Years, B/c
Majahabi Sikh, R/o Chak 2 Lsm Dhani, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District
Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sudhir Punia S/o Shri Indrajeet Ponia, B/c Bishnoi, R/o
Ward No. 22, Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Lal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Bhati, P. P.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Gaur for the
complainant
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
12/09/2022
1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has approached this Court
challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Anoopgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellate Court')
whereby the Appellate Court has vacated the order of suspension
of sentence of the petitioner.
2. The brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that
vide judgment dated 24.09.2018 passed by Judicial Magistrate,
Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as the
'trial Court') the petitioner was convicted for the offence under
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2/2022]
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'NI Act'), as the cheque of Rs.1,70,000/- issued
by him got dishonored.
3. Being aggrieved of the order dated 24.09.2018, the
petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court.
4. The Appellate Court vide order dated 11.10.2018 allowed the
application of the petitioner for suspension of sentence.
5. Against the order dated 11.10.2018, the complainant filed an
application as the petitioner did not deposit 20% amount in
compliance of the order.
6. The Appellate Court vide order dated 30.09.2021 has not
only vacated the order of suspension of sentence of the petitioner
but also dismissed the appeal.
7. Mr. Mohan Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that though the present petition was preferred challenging the
order dated 30.09.2021 but during the pendency of the present
misc. petition the complainant and the petitioner have entered
into a compromise on 03.06.2022 and resolved the dispute.
8. A copy of the compromise dated 03.06.2022 has been
placed on record.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant, while accepting the
factum of compromise, submits that the complainant has received
a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- equal to the cheque amount with which he
is satisfied. He submits that the complainant does not wish to
recover the fine amount i.e. Rs.2,16,000/-.
10. In view of the aforesaid and considering the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties; the material made
available for my perusal and considering that the complainant is
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2/2022]
satisfied and that the dispute is purely a private dispute, this
Court feels that in order to establish harmony between the
petitioner and the complainant and give quietus to the litigation, it
would be expedient that the conviction order dated 24.09.2018 is
set aside.
11. The present case is wholly covered by the principle of law
laid down by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr-reported in 2012 Cr.L.J.
(SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. [AIR 1992 SC 604], the
conviction order dated 24.09.2018 is liable to be set aside in view
of compromise arrived at between the parties.
12. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed
and the conviction dated 24.09.2018 passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar and the order
dated 30.09.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.2, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar are hereby set aside.
Consequence to follow.
13. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
9-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
