SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1247

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Ishwarlal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 262 of 2024
Decided On : 21-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Gopal Singh Bhati
For the Respondents: Mukesh Trivedi, Bharat Shrimali

Compromise in criminal cases under Section 138 NI Act can lead to setting aside of conviction if the complainant is satisfied and has received full payment.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Criminal revision petition against conviction and sentence - Compromise between parties in Lok Adalat - Sentence set aside based on compromise and full payment received by complainant - Cost of 15% of cheque amount imposed on petitioner for late settlement. (Paras 1, 7, 8)

(B) Compromise - Validity of compromise in criminal matters - Court recognizes the settlement between parties and allows revision petition based on mutual agreement. (Paras 4, 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine. The parties reached a compromise, and the complainant does not wish to proceed further.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the conviction and sentence based on the compromise, imposing a cost of 15% of the cheque amount.

Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise between the parties could lead to the setting aside of the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compromise is valid under Section 147 of the NI Act, allowing the setting aside of the sentence while imposing a cost for the late settlement.

Result: Revision petition allowed.

ORDER :

1. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision petition is allowed for reasons stated therein. The delay in filing the criminal revision petition is hereby condoned.

2. The matter is being heard and decided today itself.

3. This revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 49/2018 (CIS No. 49/2018) by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vallabhnagar, Dist. Udaipur in Crl. Regular Case No. 21/2013 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been affirmed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment along with fine in the sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and complainant-respondent No. 2 have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the respondent No. 2 has received all the amount from the petitioner and does not want to proceed with the matter, therefore the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be set aside. The copy of the compromise is already placed on record.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 concurs with the facts stated by the counsel for the petitioner.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the compromise deed.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, since the parties have settled their dispute and complainant respondent No. 2 has accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of dispute 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 v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663, 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 light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra).

8. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment dated 01.11.2021 and 18.01.2017 ishereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to deposition of cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one month from today. In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within the stipulated period, the revision petition may be listed before this Court for passing appropriate orders.

9. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. Suspension of sentence application also stands decided accordingly.

10. A copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top