Daulat Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9000 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:37474]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 711/2022

Daulat Singh Chouhan S/o Sh. Govind Singh Chouhan, Aged About 40 Years, Near Bus Stand, Dasaniya Ka Kheda Sawaipur, Teh. Kotari, Dist. Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Kalpna Kothari W/o Sh. Mangilal Kothari, R.k. Colony, Thana Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. R.R. Ankiya
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
                                 Mr. Hitesh Kumar



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                      Order

02/11/2023

1. The instant revision petition is barred by limitation from 875

days. For the reasons mentioned in the application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act and also looking to the fact that the parties

have arrived at a compromise and settled their dispute, the

application seeking condonation of delay is accepted. The delay in

filing the revision petition is condoned.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the

judgment dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.15/2018

affirming the judgment dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.2, Bhilwara in

Criminal Case No.1695/2016, whereby, the petitioner was

[2023:RJ-JD:37474] (2 of 4) [CRLR-711/2022]

convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act and was sentenced to one year's simple

imprisonment and further ordered to pay compensation to the

tune of Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was

prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 138 of 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 24.09.2019, hence the present

revision petition has been filed.

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

the dispute amicably. Copy of Compromise deed dated 13.01.2022

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.

5. 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:37474] (3 of 4) [CRLR-711/2022]

6. 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.

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

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

allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

15.12.2017 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, NI

Act Cases, No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.1695/2016 and the

judgment in appeal dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal

No.15/2018 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.25,000/- upon the petitioner. The petitioner is

directed to deposit a cost of Rs.25,000/- with the District Legal

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

cost is not deposited by the petitioner, the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court shall be

rejuvenated without any reference to the Court.

8. The petitioner is not in judicial custody. He need not

surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. If after judgment of

appeal, warrant has been issued against the petitioner, then the

[2023:RJ-JD:37474] (4 of 4) [CRLR-711/2022]

same shall be withdrawn forthwith upon showing receipt of

deposition of cost with the DLSA, Bhilwara.

9. The stay petition is also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 113-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)