Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishan Lal Jangid vs Bhanwar Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:26219) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26219]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 589/2024
Kishan Lal Jangid S/o Shri Jaskaran Jangid, Aged About 42
Years, R/o Maliyo Ka Mohalla, Dujar, Police Station Ladnun, Tehsil
Ladnun, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Pus Singh, Aged About 74 Years, R/o
Maharshi Dayanand Colony, Ladnun Police Station Ladnun Tehsil
Ladnun District Nagaur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Suthar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Nehra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/05/2025
The petitioner - Kishan Lal Jangid is present-in-person
before this Court for securing his presence.
The accused petitioner - Kishan Lal Jangid is directed to
appear before Registrar (Judicial) who shall mark his attendance.
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ladnun, District Nagaur in Criminal Appeal No.11/2022 by
which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the
judgment dated 18.09.2017 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate (First Class), Ladnun, District Nagaur in Crl. Case
No.271/2011 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence
under Section 138 N.I. Act has been affirmed. The petitioner was
sentenced to undergo two years' simple imprisonment along with
[2025:RJ-JD:26219] (2 of 3) [CRLR-589/2024]
fine in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo six months' S.I.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
and complainant-respondent have entered into a compromise in
the spirit of Lok Adalat and the respondent 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 copy of the compromise is
already placed on record.
Learned counsel for sole respondent 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 deed.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
since the parties have settled their dispute and complainant-
respondent 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).
[2025:RJ-JD:26219] (3 of 3) [CRLR-589/2024]
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act
vide judgments dated 23.04.2024 and 18.09.2017 are hereby set
aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to
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 also stands decided
accordingly.
Record of the courts below be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
145-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
