Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Usman Khan vs Bodu Ram (2025:Rj-Jd:21943) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:21943]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1305/2024
Usman Khan S/o Ramjan Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Makrana, Dist. Deedwana-Kuchaman, Raj. (Lodged In Central
Jail, Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
Bodu Ram S/o Shivkaran Ram, R/o Hudiya, Makrana, Dist.
Deedwana-Kuchaman,raj.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhola Ram Chahar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
07/05/2025
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Makrana in Criminal Appeal No.112/2019 by which, the
appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment
dated 18.07.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Makrana in Crl. Case No.08/2015 convicting and sentencing the
petitioner for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been
affirmed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months'
simple imprisonment along with fine in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo fifteen days' S.I.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has remained in custody for a period of one month out of total six
months' imprisonment and the parties have entered into a
[2025:RJ-JD:21943] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1305/2024]
compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the sole 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,
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 07.09.2024 and 18.07.2019 are hereby set
aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.
[2025:RJ-JD:21943] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1305/2024]
The revision petition is allowed in the above terms.
Suspension of sentence application also stands decided
accordingly.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
84-Rashi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
