Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Trilok Singh vs Rameshwar Lal And Anr. ... on 14 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:23428]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 810/2007
Trilok Singh S/o Sujan Singh, Aged 42 years, By caste Chhabra,
Proprietor of Chhabra Traders, Resident of 104, Sindhi Colony,
Pratap Nagar, Chittorgarh At present House No. A-3, Pratap
Nagar, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rameshwar Lal S/o Shri Onkarlal Menariya, Resident of Vana
Police station, Kheroda, District- Udaipur Rajasthan.
2. State of Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Jodha
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. H.S. Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
14/05/2025
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 26.06.2007 passed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.05/2006 by
which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and
affirmed the judgment dated 12.11.2005 passed by the learned
Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (S.D.), Vallabhnagar,
District Udaipur in Crl. Case No.108/2004, whereby the petitioner
was convicted for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and
sentenced to undergo six month's simple imprisonment along with
fine in the sum of Rs.30,000/- in default of payment of fine, to
further undergo one month's S.I.
[2025:RJ-JD:23428] (2 of 3) [CRLR-810/2007]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
and complainant-respondent No.1 have entered into a compromise
in the spirit of Lok Adalat as the respondent No.1 has received all
the due amount from the petitioner and the respondent No.1 does
not want to proceed with the matter, therefore, the sentence so
awarded to the petitioner may be set aside. The copy of the
compromise-deed is already placed on record.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 concurs with the facts
stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case as
well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the compromise-deed.
Since the parties have settled their dispute, complainant-
respondent No.1 has accepted the sum towards full and final
settlement of dispute on his satisfaction 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 between the parties after rejection of the appeal
preferred by the petitioner, the matter is decided 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 judgments dated 26.06.2007 and 12.11.2005 are hereby set
aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.
[2025:RJ-JD:23428] (3 of 3) [CRLR-810/2007]
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.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
27-minki/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
