Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5146 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017172]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 517/2023

Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Nar Singh, Aged About 47 Years, B/c Jat R/o Sardarpura Tehsil Rajgarh Dist. Churu Raj. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Bikaner)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, Having Its Branch Office At Post Sadulpur Tehsil Rajgarh Dist. Churu Raj. And 2Nd Floor Punjab National Bank Rani Bazar Bikaner 334001 Raj. Through Its Authorised Representative

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Kumar Kumawat through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA Mr. Vijay

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

24/05/2023

1. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application

(I.A. No.1/23) preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section

5 of the Limitation Act, the same is allowed. The delay of 281 days

in filing the revision petition is condoned.

2. In view of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench in

the case of Vishnu Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.

Criminal Revision Petition No.1734/2009 decided on

25.11.2010], the defect pointed out by the Registry is ignored.

3. The instant revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read

with Section 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner

[2023/RJJD/017172] (2 of 4) [CRLR-517/2023]

against the judgment dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Rajgarh, Churu in

Criminal Appeal No.64/2019, whereby the judgment dated

19.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Rajgarh in Criminal Regular Case No.66/2008

convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the

NI Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment of two

years alongwith a fine of Rs.3,50,000/- in default of payment of

fine to undergo addition simple imprisonment for two months was

upheld.

4. At the outset learned counsel submits that post the

conviction and judgment of appeal, the parties have resolved their

dispute amicably and reached on a settlement and for that a

compromise deed has been executed in between them. A copy of

which has been placed on record. It is recited in the compromise

deed dated 15.05.2023 that the entire due amount has been paid

to the complainant and nothing remains to be paid to him. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has been convicted under

Section 138 of the NI Act, which is compoundable in nature and as

the parties have arrived at compromise, thus nothing survives for

consideration in this revision petition, therefore, the judgments

passed by both the Courts below may be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not

dispute the fact that compromise has entered in between them

and according to which, the amount has been paid to the

complainant and now he does not wish to continue proceeding

against the petitioner.

[2023/RJJD/017172] (3 of 4) [CRLR-517/2023]

6. The parties have arrived at a compromise and the same has

been placed on record, as per which, the complainant respondent

has received entire amount towards the cheque in question. There

is no outstanding amount or any dispute regarding payment is

pending between the parties. It is also mentioned in the

compromise deed that the parties shall get the revision pending

before this court disposed of. The mater is purely inter se between

the parties and does not affect the interest of the society or

against the maintenance of law and order. The dispute arose

between them owing to some discord in connection with

installment of vehicle. Thus, to maintain harmony among the

society and for reestablishment of the relation between the

parties, the compromise which pertain to bailable offence can be

considered even at post conviction stage.

7. Upon consideration of the submissions made above and on

perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it fit

to allow the instant Criminal Revision in terms of the aforesaid

memo of compromise.

8. Since a long the dispute was pending in between the parties

but no endeavour seem to have made by them. A precious time

of the trial court, then during the proceeding of the appeal and

now of this Court has been taken up and the compromise has

entered at this belated stage, therefore, it is deemed appropriate

to impose a cost of proceeding of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the

petitioner. The amount would be deposited to the District Legal

Services Authority (D.L.S.A), Churu. The petitioner would have to

deposit Rs.30,000/- with the D.L.S.A., Churu within a period of 15

[2023/RJJD/017172] (4 of 4) [CRLR-517/2023]

days from today. It is made clear that if the amount is not

deposited as aforesaid the judgment of conviction passed by the

court below shall be deemed to be rejuvenated and this order

shall be rescinded automatically.

9. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision is allowed. The

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2022

passed by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge No.2, Rajgarh, Churu in Criminal Appeal No.64/2019 and

the judgment dated 19.07.2019 passed by the learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh in Criminal Regular Case

No.66/2008 are hereby quashed and set aside and the petitioner-

accused is acquitted from the charge for the offence punishable

under Section 138 of NI Act. The petitioner is on bail. His bail

bonds shall stand discharged. If warrant has been issued after

dismissal of appeal, the same shall be recalled after the receipt of

deposition of Rs.30,000/- is shown to the learned trial court.

10. All Pending applications stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 158-AnilKC/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)