[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinay Sahu vs Late Jagganath (2026:Rj-Jd:20480) on 29 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:20480]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 656/2026
Vinay Sahu S/o Shri Dayalal Sahu, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
House No. 326, Dhan Mandi, Tel Bazar, Dhanmandi, Udaipur,
Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Late Jagganath S/o Shri Nanda Dangi, R/o Khempura,
Tehsil Girwa, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan Through His Legal
Heirs
2. Smt. Fefa Bai W/o Late Shri Jagannath Dangi, R/o In
Front Of Akashwani Colony, Khempura, Tehsil Girwa, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Madan Lal Dangi S/o Late Shri Jagannath Dangi, R/o In
Front Of Akashwani Colony, Khempura, Tehsil Girwa, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Khemraj Dangi S/o Late Shri Jagannath Dangi, R/o In
Front Of Akashwani Colony, Khempura, Tehsil Girwa, Dist.
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Smt. Roopa Bai W/o Shri Shankar Lal Dangi, D/o Late
Shri Jagannath Dangi R/o Manavkheda Tehsil Girwa Dist.
Udaipur Raj.
6. Smt. Manju Bai W/o Shri Ramesh Dangi, D/o Late Shri
Jagannath Dangi R/o Udaivihar Khempura Tehsil Girwa
Dist. Udaipur Raj.
7. Smt. Lalita Bai W/o Shri Naresh Dangi, D/o Late Shri
Jagannath Dangi R/o Bada Nokha Tehsil Girwa Dist.
Udaipur Raj.
8. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. LS Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Pradeep Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/04/2026
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:17:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20480] (2 of 4) [CRLR-656/2026]
1. By filing the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner
is challenging the judgment dated 13.03.2026 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in Case
No.16/2019 affirming the judgment dated 01.02.2019 passed by
the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.05,
Udaipur in Case No.2415/2015 (CIS No.686/2016) whereby, the
petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment of one year and further ordered to pay
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and in default of payment of
compensation, further to undergo simple imprisonment of fifteen
days.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was
prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. After completion of trial, he was
found guilty and thus, was convicted and sentenced by the learned
trial Court. The judgment of conviction was assailed by the
petitioner by way of filing a criminal appeal but the same has been
dismissed vide judgment dated 13.03.2026, hence the present
revision petition has been filed.
4. The parties have entered into a compromise and have settled
the dispute amicably. Copy of Compromise deed dated 03.04.2026
has been placed on record. Parties have resolved the dispute since
the petitioner has paid the due amount satisfying the respondent-
claimant. As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, an offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable without taking
permission of the court. Thus, it is jointly prayed that the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:17:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20480] (3 of 4) [CRLR-656/2026]
judgment of conviction as well as the order of appeal be quashed
and set aside.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record and gone through both the judgments as well
as the compromise deed wherein it is recited that the parties have
resolved their dispute amicably and the complainant does not wish
to continue the proceedings.
6. Since the precious time of the court has been wasted in the
entire criminal proceedings and now, the parties have arrived at a
compromise at a belated stage, therefore, it is deemed
appropriate to impose cost of proceedings upon the accused.
7. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties
and the statutory provision in this regard, the revision petition is
allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
01.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI
Act Cases) No.05, Udaipur in Case No.2415/2015 (CIS
No.686/2016) and the judgment in appeal dated 13.03.2026
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Udaipur in
Case No.16/2019 are quashed and set aside. The accused is
acquitted from the charges. However, since the dispute has been
resolved after long lapse of time and the precious time of the
Courts have been spent by the parties, thus, in light of the
Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babulal H., reported in AIR 2010 SC 1907 it is deemed
appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.30,000/- upon the petitioner.
The petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.30,000/- with the
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:17:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20480] (4 of 4) [CRLR-656/2026]
District Legal Services Authority, Udaipur. It is further made clear
that if the cost is not deposited by the petitioner, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court
shall be rejuvenated without any reference to the Court.
8. The petitioner is not in judicial custody. He need not
surrender. His bail bonds are discharged. If after judgment of
appeal, warrant has been issued against the petitioner, then the
same shall be withdrawn forthwith upon showing receipt of
deposition of cost with the DLSA, Udaipur.
9. The stay petition is also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
201-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 30/04/2026 at 02:17:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
