[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sushil Vaishnav vs Prashant Teli (2026:Rj-Jd:9328) on 18 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:9328]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 213/2026
Sushil Vaishnav S/o Madan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 38 Years,
H.n.37 Shrinath Colony Jharno Ki Saray Debari District Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Prashant Teli S/o Pushkar Teli, Aged About 31 Years,
Bujhda Tehsil Girwa Dist Udaipur
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Hitendra Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/02/2026
1. There is a delay of 617 days in filing of the instant revision
petition.
2. The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
3. Owing to acute financial constraints, the petitioner and his
family members were unable to file the instant revision petition at
the relevant time. It is stated that upon arranging the requisite
resources, they promptly contacted their counsel and, after
obtaining the certified copies and necessary papers from the court
concerned, proceeded without any further delay to institute the
present petition.
4. The explanation furnished reflects that the delay occasioned
in filing the revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional,
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 11:34:33 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9328] (2 of 4) [CRLR-213/2026]
but attributable to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. The
cause shown appears to be sufficient within the meaning of
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application,
which are found to be just and satisfactory, the same is allowed.
6. Consequently, the delay of 617 days in filing the revision
petition is condoned.
7. The instant revision petition shall be treated as having been
filed within limitation.
8. The present revision petition under Section 438 read with
Section 442 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner
against the judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 360/2023, whereby
the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 4, Udaipur, in Criminal Regular Case
No. 9127/2017. Vide the said judgment, the petitioner was
convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo one year's simple
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
9. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are
that the respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under
Section 138 of the NI Act alleging that the petitioner had borrowed
a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- for personal needs and, in discharge
thereof, issued a cheque which, upon presentation, was
dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Despite service of
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 11:34:33 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9328] (3 of 4) [CRLR-213/2026]
statutory notice, the petitioner failed to make payment within the
stipulated period, whereupon the complaint was filed. After trial,
the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide
judgment dated 14.06.2023, which came to be affirmed by the
learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2024.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present
revision petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashment of the
impugned judgments and submits that the dispute arises out of an
offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and that, during the
pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably
resolved their inter se dispute and arrived at a lawful compromise
outside the court.
11. In view of the compromise dated 17.11.2025 and
considering the nature of the offence, which is essentially
compensatory and private in character, this Court deems it
appropriate to give effect to the settlement so as to advance the
ends of justice and to encourage amicable resolution of disputes,
however, this Court is of the considered view that costs deserve to
be imposed upon the petitioner. The imposition of costs is justified
to balance the equities, to deter frivolous or prolonged litigation
under Section 138 of the NI Act, and to compensate for the time
and resources consumed by the judicial process despite the
eventual settlement.
12. It is directed to the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 40,000/-
shall be deposited with Police Welfare Fund, Udaipur within 30
days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Proof
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 11:34:33 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9328] (4 of 4) [CRLR-213/2026]
of such deposit shall be submitted before the concerned court at
Udaipur.
13. Upon compliance with the aforesaid condition, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court
and affirmed by the learned appellate court shall stand set aside.
The petitioner shall not be required to surrender and is acquitted
of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act in view of the compromise. If the amount is not deposited as
mentioned in Para No.12, the learned trial Court shall inform to
this Court.
14. In the event of non-compliance within the stipulated period,
this revision petition shall be treated as dismissed as withdrawn,
and the judgments of the courts below shall automatically revive
and remain enforceable in accordance with law. The Registry shall
place the matter before this Court for appropriate orders.
15. With these observations and directions, the instant Criminal
Revision Petition stands disposed of.
16. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
212-divya
(Uploaded on 21/02/2026 at 11:34:33 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
