Chhotu Singh vs Govind Nath (2023:Rj-Jd:36784)
2023 Latest Caselaw 8852 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:36784]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1823/2023

Chhotu Singh S/o Chain Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Mankhand, Tehsil Mavali, Police Station Fateh Nagar, Dist. Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Govind Nath S/o Man Nath Rajput, R/o Dariba Colony, Police Station Railmagra, Tehsil Railmagra, Dist. Rajsamand.

                                                                        ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr. B.L. Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
                           Order

30/10/2023

The delay in filing the criminal writ petition is condoned.

The petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the

judgment dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal No.43/2019

affirming the judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned

Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Railmagra in Criminal Case

No.281/2018, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and

was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and further

ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,29,250/- to the

complainant.

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

[2023:RJ-JD:36784] (2 of 3) [CRLW-1823/2023]

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 21.03.2022, hence the present

criminal writ petition has been filed.

The parties have entered into a compromise and have settled

the dispute amicably. Copy of Compromise deed dated 01.09.2023

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.

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.

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.

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties

and the statutory provision in this regard, the criminal writ

petition is allowed. The judgment dated 21.03.2022 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Criminal Appeal

[2023:RJ-JD:36784] (3 of 3) [CRLW-1823/2023]

No.43/2019 and the judgment dated 19.06.2019 passed by the

learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Railmagra in Criminal

Case No.281/2018 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.5,000/- upon the petitioner.

The petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.2,000/- with

the District Legal Services Authority, Rajsamand. It is further

made clear that if the cost of proceedings i.e. Rs.2,000/- 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.

The application (I.A. No.01/2023) for exempting personal

appearance of the petitioner before the court below is allowed.

The bail bonds of the petitioner are discharged. He is not in

judicial custody. If after judgment of appeal, warrant has been

issued against the petitioner, then the same shall be withdrawn

forthwith upon showing receipt of deposition of cost with the

DLSA, Rajsamand.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 929-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)