Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Yadav vs Kailash Chandra (2025:Rj-Jd:4033) on 21 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:4033]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 102/2025
Mukesh Yadav S/o Pritam Singh Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Pritam Pehlwans Street, South Sundarvas, District Udaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Kailash Chandra S/o Dalu Gayri, R/o Government School
Street, North Sundarvas, District Udaipur (Rajasthan)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shravan Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
Mr. H.S. Shrimali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
21/01/2025
1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 read
with Section 401 of the CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) District
Udaipur in Appeal Criminal Case No.165/2024 (CIS No.165/2024),
whereby the judgment dated 06.04.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases) Court No.7, District
Udaipur in Regular Criminal Case No.624/2019 (CIS
No.2092/2016) convicting the petitioner for the offence under
Section 138 of the NI Act and sentencing him to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months alongwith a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- with
default sentence of fifteen days' simple imprisonment was upheld.
[2025:RJ-JD:4033] (2 of 3) [CRLR-102/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a
compromise -cum- agreement with the complainant. It is recited
in the compromise deed dated 14.01.2025 that the entire due
amount has been paid to the complainant and nothing remains to
be paid to him. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been
convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, which is compoundable
in nature and as the parties have arrived at a compromise, thus,
nothing survives for consideration in this revision petition,
therefore, the judgments passed by both the Courts below may be
quashed and set aside.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor
and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the
compromise dated 14.01.2025 and other material made available
to this court.
4. The parties have arrived at a compromise and the same has
already been placed on record, as per which, the complainant-
respondent has received entire amount towards the cheque in
question. There is no outstanding amount or any dispute
regarding payment is pending between the parties. It is also
mentioned in the compromise deed that the parties shall get the
revision pending before this court disposed of.
5. Upon consideration of the submissions made above and on
perusal of the material available on record, this Court deems it fit
to allow the instant Criminal Revision in terms of the aforesaid
memo of compromise. After the judgment of appeal the accused
has not surrendered and as such is not behind the bars. He need
not to surrender back.
[2025:RJ-JD:4033] (3 of 3) [CRLR-102/2025]
6. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
06.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate,
(N.I. Act Cases) Court No.7, District Udaipur in Regular Criminal
Case No.624/2019 (CIS No.2092/2016) and the judgment dated
04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities Cases) District Udaipur in Appeal
Criminal Case No.165/2024 (CIS No.165/2024), are hereby
quashed and set aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted
from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of
NI Act. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
7. All Pending applications stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
366-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
