Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangilal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26423) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26396]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 584/2024
Mangilal S/o Sh. Toliram Hirawat, Aged About 62 Years, R/o
Kharsan, Teh Vallabhnagar Ps Kheroda Dist. Udaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kailash Chandra S/o Sh. Moti Lal Menaira, R/o Kharsan,
Teh Vallabhnagar Ps Kherodha, Dist. Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parikshit Nayak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP
Mr. Vijay Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/05/2025
Defects pointed out by the Registry are hereby waived.
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal
No.320/2023 by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed and the judgment dated 02.05.2023 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Bhinder, District Udaipur in Case
No.56/2016 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.90,000/- in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo two months' S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:26396] (2 of 3) [CRLR-584/2024]
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 copy of the compromise is
already 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 deed.
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
[2025:RJ-JD:26396] (3 of 3) [CRLR-584/2024]
vide judgment dated 26.03.2024 and 02.05.2023 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.
A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
C-1-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
