Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jagdish Prasad vs Surendra Kumar Mehandiratta And Anr. ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26715]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 784/2010
Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal B/c Kumhar, aged 40
years R/o Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
1.Surendra Kumar Mehandiratta S/o Mushi Ram Mehabndiratta
B/c Arora, R/o H.No.91 Block Sri Ganaganagar
2. The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
Mr. Manoj Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/05/2025
1. The instant Revision Petition is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2008
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in
Criminal Case No.569/2003 whereby the learned trial Judge
convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for the offence
under Section 138 NI Act, which has been affirmed by the Court of
Appeal i.e. learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar
vide judgment dated 18.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.64/2009.
2. It is evident from the e certified copy of the order sheet dated
25.03.2014 that a compromise was entered into between the parties on
08.04.2010. It further appears that, in compliance with directions
issued on 22.10.2010, the petitioner has duly paid the agreed amount
[2025:RJ-JD:26715] (2 of 3) [CRLR-784/2010]
to the respondent. This payment forms part of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, and there is nothing on record to suggest non-
compliance with the terms of the compromise.
2.1. It is pertinent to note that the alleged incident dates back to the
year 2002. Thus, more than twenty-three years have elapsed since the
occurrence of the offence. The offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act is bailable and compoundable in nature.
Importantly, the compromise was arrived at between the parties
approximately fifteen years ago and no further litigation or grievance
has surfaced thereafter, indicating that the parties have fully and finally
resolved their dispute.
2.2. Given the long passage of time, the fact that the matter has been
amicably settled, and considering the nature of the offence being
primarily compensatory rather than punitive in nature, this Court is of
the considered opinion that sustaining the sentence at this belated
stage would only serve to revive a conflict that had long been laid to
rest. It may further disrupt the equilibrium achieved by the parties
through mutual settlement.
2.3. It is well settled that in compoundable offences, especially under
the Negotiable Instruments Act, the primary object of the law is to
ensure the return of the amount due, rather than to incarcerate the
drawer of the dishonoured cheque, provided the complainant is duly
compensated and no public interest is adversely affected.
3. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the
sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the
Appellate Court, without interfering with the finding of guilt, which is
otherwise based on proper appreciation of evidence.
[2025:RJ-JD:26715] (3 of 3) [CRLR-784/2010]
3.1. In view of the above, the present Revision Petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
1. The finding of guilt as recorded by the learned Trial Court is
upheld and maintained.
2. However, the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and
affirmed by the Court of Appeal is modified to the extent that the
amount already paid by the petitioner to the respondent, in
accordance with the compromise dated 08.04.2010, shall be
deemed sufficient for the purpose of sentence.
3. Since the petitioner is on bail, he is not required to surrender. His
sentence stands modified accordingly.
4. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner are ordered to be
discharged.
5. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
14-Mamta/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
