Mohammed Hussain vs Rishiraj Singh Rathore ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7900 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32543]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1073/2023

Mohammed Hussain S/o Shri Abdul Aziz Sheikh, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Muslim R/o 154 Nagmark Naga Nagri Ward No. 9 Outside Chandpole Udaipur Raj.

(Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rishiraj Singh Rathore S/o Shri Dr. Bhawani Singh Ji Rathore, B/c Rathore R/o 54-55 Flora Complex Pula Bhuwana Udaipur Raj.

2.       State of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA
                                    Mr. Sohail Khan Sherani



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                         Order

04/10/2023

1. The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the

judgment dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Special

Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Udaipur in

Criminal Appeal Case No.90/2023 (C.I.S. No.90/2023)

affirming the judgment dated 18.02.2021 passed by the

learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.4,

Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.3822/2016 (C.I.S.

No.2445/2018) whereby, the petitioner was convicted and

sentenced to suffer maximum punishment of one year simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act and a fine of Rs.5,50,000/- was

[2023:RJ-JD:32543] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1073/2023]

imposed upon him and it was ordered that in default of

payment of fine, the petitioner would undergo simple

imprisonment of one month.

2. Briefly stated, that 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

26.07.2023, 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

19.09.2023 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:32543] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1073/2023]

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 allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 18.02.2021 passed by the learned Special

Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.4, Udaipur in Criminal

Case No.3822/2016 (C.I.S. No.2445/2018) and the judgment

in appeal dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned Special

Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Udaipur in

Criminal Appeal Case No.90/2023 (C.I.S. No.90/2023) are

quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted from the

charge. 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/- with 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

18.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate

(N.I. Act Cases) No.4, Udaipur in Criminal Case

[2023:RJ-JD:32543] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1073/2023]

No.3822/2016 (C.I.S. No.2445/2018) shall be rejuvenated

without any reference to the Court.

7. The petitioner is reportedly lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur. He

shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

8. The stay petition is also disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 93-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)