[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhagwati Gupta vs Pawan Kumar (2026:Rj-Jd:9271) on 16 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:9271]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 933/2024
1. Bhagwati Gupta S/o Dr. Birbal Gupta, Aged About 60
Years, R/o House No. 41, C Block,swami Dayanand Marg,
Upside Icici Bank, Block Area, Sri Ganganagar,raj.
(Lodged In Jail)
2. Komal Gupta W/o Bhagwati Gupta, Aged About 58 Years,
R/o House No. 41, C Block,swami Dayanand Marg, Upside
Icici Bank, Block Area, Sri Ganganagar,raj. (Lodged In
Jail)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishna Lal, R/o Dhulpura, Teh.
Sadulshahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.
2. State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gaur
Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/02/2026
1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438
BNSS (397 Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 04.06.2024
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar
in Criminal Appeal No.104/2016 whereby the learned Appellate
Judge has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.557/2012
whereby the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the
petitioner for one year's SI for offence under Section 138 of the NI
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:13:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9271] (2 of 5) [CRLR-933/2024]
Act along with penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- and in default to further
undergo 15 days' Addl. SI.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-
complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners, alleging
dishonour of cheque and consequent statutory non-compliance.
Upon due consideration of the pleadings, documentary evidence,
and submissions advanced by both sides, the learned trial court,
vide judgment dated 28.09.2016, recorded a finding of guilt and
convicted the petitioners.
2.1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a criminal
appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. The appellate court, after reappreciation of
the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and
affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence as rendered by
the trial court. Hence the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has moved I.A. No.
1/2026 seeking disposal of the present revision petition on the
ground that the disputants have amicably settled their differences.
It is submitted that the respondent-complainant has received, in a
single consolidated payment, the entire sum advanced to the
petitioners, and that no subsisting financial liability remains
outstanding. A duly executed compromise deed has been placed
on record in substantiation thereof.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent as also
learned AGA for the State have candidly affirmed the factum of
settlement and acknowledged receipt of the full and final
payment.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:13:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9271] (3 of 5) [CRLR-933/2024]
5. Having accorded anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the compromise deed as well as the
material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the
matter in its proper legal perspective.
5.1. The genesis of the controversy lies in a purely private
commercial transaction which culminated in prosecution under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the
pendency of the present revisional proceedings, the parties have
voluntarily and lawfully resolved their dispute by way of a
compromise dated 28.01.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner
has discharged the entire monetary obligation owed to the
complainant. This position remains uncontroverted by the learned
counsel for the respondent as well as by the learned Additional
Government Advocate representing the State.
5.2. It is trite that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is compoundable in character. The legislative
intent underlying the provision is predominantly compensatory
and remedial, designed to secure the credibility of commercial
transactions and ensure recovery of dues, rather than to impose
retributive punishment. Once the complainant stands fully
restituted and no residual grievance survives, the continuance of
criminal proceedings would neither subserve public interest nor
advance the cause of justice; rather, it would amount to an
unwarranted perpetuation of litigation and an oppressive
invocation of the criminal process.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:13:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9271] (4 of 5) [CRLR-933/2024]
5.3. This Court also finds substance in the submission that,
notwithstanding the subsequent settlement, the petitioner has
already suffered incarceration. In such circumstances, equity,
proportionality, and the overarching mandate of substantial justice
warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
5.4. Nevertheless, while extending individual relief, the Court
remains mindful of the need to preserve the sanctity of judicial
process and deter casual invocation of criminal machinery. A
calibrated imposition of costs would appropriately balance private
reconciliation with institutional interests.
6. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
28.09.2016 rendered by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate
No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 557/2012, as well as
the judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.
104/2016, are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 in view of the lawful compromise entered
into between the parties.
7. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as costs in
the Police Welfare Fund, Sri Ganganagar, within thirty days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of
failure to comply within the stipulated period, the Registry shall
list the matter before this Court for appropriate directions.
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:13:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9271] (5 of 5) [CRLR-933/2024]
7.1. It is further directed that the petitioner shall deposit the
entire fine amount before the learned trial court within one month
and place on record the receipt evidencing such deposit. Alongside
the receipt, the petitioner shall furnish a formal undertaking,
supported by an appropriate bond, affirming due compliance.
7.2. If the petitioner makes default in depositing Rs.20,000/- as
ordered above within the prescribed period, the learned trial court
shall forthwith report such non-compliance to this Court. Upon
occurrence of such default, the present order shall automatically
stand vacated without further adjudication, and the judgments of
conviction and sentence passed by the courts below shall revive
and become enforceable in accordance with law.
8. The record be transmitted expeditiously to the court
concerned. As the petitioner is presently not in custody, no
direction for surrender is required.
9. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(FARJAND ALI),J
138-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/02/2026 at 01:13:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
