Rajasthan High Court
Manoj Kumar Pahadiya S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 8 November, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023:RJ-JP:34287]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2057/2022
Manoj Kumar Pahadiya S/o Shri Jagdish Pahadiya, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Khohra Pada, Town Lalsot, Tehsil Lalsot, District
Dausa (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Moolchand, R/o Behind
Nai Anaj Mandi, Town Lalsot, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, P. P.
Mr. Mohit Pareek for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Order
08/11/2023
1. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., the accused-petitioner has approached this Court with a
prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 13.05.2019 passed
by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Lalsot, District Dausa
in Criminal Appeal No.71/2018 by which the criminal appeal filed
by the petitioner was dismissed and also to quash and set aside
the judgment dated 29.08.2018 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate No.2, Lalsot, District Dausa in Criminal Case
No.BT No.231/2017 (292/2013) by which the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act for
one year simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.6,00,000/-.
[2023:RJ-JP:34287] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2057/2022]
2. The brief facts are that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint
against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the petitioner has
borrowed Rs.3 lac and issued post-dated cheque to the
respondent No.2, but on presentation of the aforesaid cheque in
the bank the same was returned on the ground of insufficient fund
and even after service of demand notice, no money was paid to
the respondent No.2.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, both the parties have
amicably settled their dispute but compromise could not be filed
before the Court below and as per the compromise the respondent
No.2 has already received the amount.
4. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this
Court by way of this petition to quash the aforesaid impugned
judgments on the ground that the parties have resolved their
dispute.
5. Vide order dated 19.10.2023, this Court directed the
accused-petitioner to deposit Rs.20,000/- before the Rajasthan
State Legal Services Authority and after deposition of the same,
both the parties were directed to appear before the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court along with photo-stat copy of the receipt.
The Registrar (Judicial) was also directed to verify the factum of
compromise.
6. On 20.10.2023, both the parties were present in person
before the Registrar (Judicial) along with receipt of Rs.20,000/-.
The Registrar (Judicial) has verified the factum of compromise and
attested the same.
[2023:RJ-JP:34287] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2057/2022]
7. Learned counsel for the complainant, while accepting the
factum of compromise, submits that the complainant has no
objection if the impugned judgments are quashed.
8. 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 dispute in
question relates to the money transaction and the parties have
settled the same by compensating/restituting, 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 impugned judgments are quashed.
9. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed
and the judgment and order dated 13.05.2019 passed by
Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Lalsot, District Dausa in
Criminal Appeal No.71/2018 and the judgment and order dated
29.08.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Lalsot, District Dausa in Criminal Case No.BT No.231/2017
(292/2013) are quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.
10. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J
A. ARORA /543
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
