Amit Jain vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3882 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013191]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 470/2023

Amit Jain S/o Basanti Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 2-K-64 Gayatri Nagar, Sector No. 05, Hiranmagari, District Udaipur, At Present House No. 1429, Hiranmagari, Sector No. 05, Prabhatnagar, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Chandra Prakash Dhobi S/o Roshan Lal Dhobi, R/o L -

103, Dabal Story Sector No. 09, Savina, Udaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Love Jain
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Saurabh Soni



               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                     Order

02/05/2023

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the

judgment dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge,

SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No.19/2022 affirming the

judgment dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judicial

Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Case

No.20199/2022 whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and further

ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- to the

complainant.

2. Briefly stated, that facts of the case are that the petitioner

was prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 138 of

[2023/RJJD/013191] (2 of 3) [CRLR-470/2023]

the Negotiable Instruments Act. After completion of trial, he was

found guilty and thus, was convicted and sentenced by the learned

trial Court. The judgment of conviction was assailed by the

petitioner by way of filing a criminal appeal but the same has been

dismissed vide judgment dated 10.04.2023, hence the present

revision petition has been filed.

3. The parties have entered into a compromise and have settled

the dispute amicably. Copy of Compromise deed dated 15.04.2023

has been placed on record. Parties have resolved the dispute since

the petitioner has paid the due amount satisfying the respondent-

claimant. As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, an offence under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable without taking

permission of the court. Thus, it is jointly prayed that the

judgment of conviction as well as the order of appeal be quashed

and set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record and gone through both the judgments as well

as the compromise deed wherein it is recited that the parties have

resolved their dispute amicably and the complainant does not wish

to continue the proceedings.

5. Since the precious time of the court has been wasted in the

entire criminal proceedings and now, the parties have arrived at a

compromise at a belated stage, therefore, it is deemed

appropriate to impose cost of proceedings upon the accused.

6. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties

and the statutory provision in this regard, the revision petition is

[2023/RJJD/013191] (3 of 3) [CRLR-470/2023]

allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

06.05.2022 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI

Act Cases) No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Case No.20199/2022 and

the judgment in appeal dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned

Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No.19/2022

are quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted from the

charges. However, since the dispute has been resolved after long

lapse of time and the precious time of the Courts have been spent

by the parties, thus, in light of the Supreme Court Judgment in

the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H.,

reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 it is deemed appropriate to

impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner is

directed to deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- before the District Legal

Services Authority, Udaipur. It is further made clear that if the cost

of proceedings i.e. Rs.10,000/- is not deposited by the petitioner,

the conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2022 passed by

the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 1,

Udaipur in Criminal Case No.20199/2022 shall be rejuvenated

without any reference to the Court.

7. The bail bonds of the petitioner are discharged.

8. The stay petition is also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 173-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)