[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kumar vs Vikram Panwar (2026:Rj-Jd:6751) on 5 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:6750]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 178/2026
Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years,
Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mithai Ke Dibbe Ki Dukan, Near
Sahara Bank Office, Opposite Brahmkumari Ashram, Balotra,
Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj. (Presently Lodged In
District Jail, Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Balotra Raj.
----Respondent
WITH
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 179/2026
Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years,
Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat,
R/o Mithai Ke Box Ki Dukan, Near Sahara Bank Office, Opposite
Brahmakumari Ashram, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Balotra Raj.. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Balotra Raj..
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 180/2026
Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years,
Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mithai Ke Dibbe Ki Dukan, Near
Sahara Bank Office, Opposite Brahmakumariashram, Balotra,
Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj. (Presently Lodged In
District Jail Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Balotra Raj..
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 181/2026
Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years,
Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat,
R/o Mithai Ke Box Ki Dukan, Near Sahara Bank Office, Opposite
Brahmakumari Ashram, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:22:33 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 08:36:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6750] (2 of 3) [CRLR-178/2026]
Balotra Raj.. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra,
District Balotra Raj..
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veer Bajrang Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Chhangani
Mr. Hanuman Singh
Mr. Bhuvnesh Chhangani
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/02/2026
1. Four different cases were lodged between the same parties.
The complainant initiated prosecutions which were registered as
four criminal regular cases and trial of each of the four cases were
held separately and decided by separate judgments.
2. The petitioner was tried for committing an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act")
and, after a full-fledged trial, was acquitted of the charges.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the complainant
preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned
Sessions Judge, in appeal, converted the judgment of acquittal
dated 23.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, into a judgment of conviction vide order dated
30.01.2026. Hence, these present revision petitions.
5. Subsequently, the parties amicably settled the dispute and
entered into a compromise. A compromise deed to this effect has
been produced before this Court. In terms of the compromise, the
dispute stands permanently resolved.
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:22:33 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6750] (3 of 3) [CRLR-178/2026]
6. Since the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is a
bailable and compoundable offence, therefore, in view of the
compromise, these petitions deserve to be allowed. However, as
the machinery of law and justice has been engaged in the private
dispute between the parties for nearly two decades, costs are
required to be imposed in terms of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.
Sayed Babalal reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2929.
7. Accordingly, these revision petitions are partly allowed. In
view of compromise, the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2026
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby quashed and set
aside. The order of acquittal dated 23.09.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is affirmed. The
petitioner is in jail. He shall be set free immediately in all the four
cases.
8. The parties are further directed to deposit a sum of
Rs. 10,000/- in the account of 'Aastha'. The receipt thereof shall
be sent to the learned ACJM No. 2, Balotra, within a period of 30
days. In case of non-payment, the learned trial Court shall inform
this Court accordingly.
9. In the event of non-compliance with the directions of this
Court, the order 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge
shall stand automatically rejuvenated.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
11. A copy of this order shall be placed separately in each file.
(FARJAND ALI),J
159,160,161&162/AnilKC/-
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:22:33 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
