[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nand Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13272) on 18 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:13272]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 166/2026
Nand Ram S/o Bagtawar Gurjar, Aged About 62 Years, Resident
Of Barola Ka Kheda, Post Kabradiya, Police Station Mandal,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dhan Singh S/o Vishnu Singh Chundawat, Resident Of
Malas, Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel
Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/03/2026
1. The instant criminal revision petition is barred by limitation
from 170 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act has been preferred. Having heard the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioner explaining the delay and
being satisfied with the same, the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the revision
petition is condoned.
2. By filing the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner
is challenging the judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by the
learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,
Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.19/2020 (CIS No.39/2020)
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 06:38:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13272] (2 of 4) [CRLR-166/2026]
affirming the judgment dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Mandal, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular
Case No.200/2012, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the
offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and
was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and
further ordered to pay fine of Rs.55,000/- and one year SI and in
default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple
imprisonment of six months.
3. 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 14.05.2025, 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 16.03.2026
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
judgment of conviction as well as the order of appeal be quashed
and set aside.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 06:38:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13272] (3 of 4) [CRLR-166/2026]
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
15.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandal
District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.200/2012 and the
judgment in appeal dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases Bhilwara
in Criminal Appeal No.19/2020 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.5,000/- upon the petitioner.
The petitioner is directed to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- with the
District Legal Services Authority, Bhilwara. It is further made clear
that if the cost is not deposited by the petitioner, the judgment of
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 06:38:39 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13272] (4 of 4) [CRLR-166/2026]
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, Bhilwara .
9. The stay petition is also disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
295-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 06:38:39 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
