Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9143) on 14 February, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:9143]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 203/2025
Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Balram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Chak 6
Kwd, Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Shreeram, R/o Ward No. 23,
Rawatsar, Tehsil Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Sharma
Mr. Abhishek Agarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Pratap Singh, for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
14/02/2025
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 21.01.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge
No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, in Criminal Appeal
No.115/2018 vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed and the judgment dated 03.08.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, in
Criminal Case No.162/2014 (CIS No.2307/2014) convicting and
sentencing the petitioner for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act
has been affirmed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo one
year's simple imprisonment along with fine in the sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo
one month's additional Simple imprisonment.
[2025:RJ-JD:9143] (2 of 3) [CRLR-203/2025]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
and complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise
in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the respondent No.2 has received all
the amount from the petitioner and does not want to proceed with
the matter, therefore the sentence of imprisonment awarded to
the petitioner may be set aside. The compromise dated
30.12.2024 arrived in between the parties is placed on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concurs with the facts
stated by the counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for
the parties and perused the compromise dated 30.12.2024 .
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
since the parties have settled their dispute and complainant
respondent No.2 has accepted the sum towards full and final
settlement of dispute on the satisfaction of the complainant and in
the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S.
Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663, the
sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138
NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has
been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the
petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be
imposed upon the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra).
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act
vide judgment dated 03.08.2018 and 21.01.2023 are hereby set
aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to
[2025:RJ-JD:9143] (3 of 3) [CRLR-203/2025]
deposition of cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The cost shall be
deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one month from
today. In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before
the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within the
stipulated period, the revision petition may be listed before this
Court for passing appropriate orders.
The revision petition is allowed in the above terms.
Suspension of Sentence application is also decided accordingly.
Copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
148-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
