Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 2878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Sher Mohammad – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1189/2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act
Act Referred
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT : S.138, S.147
Headnote
Limitation Act - Compromise Settlement - Section 138 NI Act - Summary: The court allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act based on a compromise settlement between the parties, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court imposed a cost of 15% of the cheque amount on the petitioner in line with the decision in Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H (2010(5) SCC 66).
Fact of the Case:
The parties reached a compromise settlement after the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The complainant-respondent decided not to proceed further in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application under the Limitation Act, set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act, and imposed a cost of 15% of the cheque amount on the petitioner.
Issues: Compromise settlement, application under Limitation Act, conviction under Section 138 NI Act, imposition of cost
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the settlement between the parties, the provisions of Section 147 of NI Act, and relied on the decision in Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H (2010(5) SCC 66) to reach its decision.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of imprisonment under Section 138 NI Act and directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority.
Mr. Mahaveer Singh, for the Appellant; Mr. Arun Kumar, PP and Mr. Surendra Bhagmalani, for the Respondent
ORDER
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the same is hereby allowed.
2. It is stated at the Bar that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties after the judgment dated 14.11.2019 passed by the appellate court whereby the judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed by the trial court has been affirmed.
It is borne out that the complainant-respondent is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H [2010(5) SCC 66].
4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled the dispute and complainant respondent had accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of the cheque, on the satisfaction of the complainant and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (supra), the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra).
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with the State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of two weeks from today.
6. The conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, vide judgment dated 10.09.2018 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Chittorgarh in Regular Criminal Case No. 144/2016 (507/2016) as affirmed by judgment dated 14.11.2019 passed by learned Addl. Session Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh in Criminal Appeal No.155/2018, is hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise.
The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
