Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinayak Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50046) on 19 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:50046]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1517/2025
Vinayak Purohit S/o Poonamchand Purohit, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Near Chacha Pan Palace, Daga Chowk Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Pp
2. Kisanlal S/o Hari Ram, Resident Of Near Shiksha Sadan
School, Gully No. 9 Rampura Basti, Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
Mr. Ravindra Kumar Purohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
19/11/2025
An application IA No.01/2025 has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in
filing the present criminal revision petition.
For reasons and grounds stated in the application, the same
is allowed and the delay in filing the present criminal revision
petition is hereby condoned.
Application IA No.02/2025 has been filed by the petitioner
for grant of exemption of petitioner from surrendering before the
Court/Police.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the
learned Additional Session Judge No.3, District Bikaner passed the
order dated 20.06.2025 in Criminal Case No.286/2023
(CIS No.527/2023), a compromise has been arrived at between
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:52:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50046] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1517/2025]
the parties and the entire amount in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
has been recovered from the petitioner and has already been
transferred to the bank account of complainant respondent No.2
to his satisfaction.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute
the above stated fact.
Looking to this factual aspect and for reasons and grounds
stated in the application, the same is allowed and the petitioner is
exempted from surrendering before the Court/Police.
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment
dated 20.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge
Makrana, District Nagaur in Criminal Case No.286/2023 (CIS
No.527/2023) by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was
dismissed and the judgment dated 13.08.2021 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.2,
Bikaner in Criminal Regular Case No.613/2017 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.1,25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was
sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
and complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise
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.
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:52:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50046] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1517/2025]
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 concurs with the facts
stated by the counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by
learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the
instant criminal revision petition, however, he does not dispute the
fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.
I have heard 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).
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act
vide judgments dated 13.08.2021 and 20.06.2025 is 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
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:52:29 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50046] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1517/2025]
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. The
application for suspension of sentence is also decided accordingly.
A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
391-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 19/11/2025 at 05:52:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
