[2025:RJ-JD:45370]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1365/2025 Shamsuddin S/o Ismail, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Bhoot Bungalow, Dungla, District Chittorgarh. (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Mohammad Shafi S/o Wali Mohammad, Resident Of 166, Raza Colony, Mullatlai, Near Badi Masjid, Udaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Singh Bhati.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. HS Jodha, PP.

Mr. Ashok Kumar for R/2.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

15/10/2025

1. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay is allowed, for the reasons mentioned therein.

2. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment 09.01.2023 of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases), No.4, Udaipur, in Criminal Case No.4582/2017 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to one year’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in default of payment of the fine to further simple imprisonment of one month.

3. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated dated 06.12.2023, passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.13/2023 (CIS No.13/2023), whereby, the appeal assailing the above-mentioned order was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both the parties have settled the matter and therefore, in view of the provision of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the present revision petition may be allowed. He submits that a settlement deed was executed on 08.10.2025 by both the parties in the presence of witnesses, fortifying the fact that the respondent No.2 has received the entire outstanding amount and has no objection if the revision petition is allowed on the basis of the said compromise.

5. On specific query, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 stated that in view of the fact that the parties have settled the issue and the amount has been paid, he has no objection if the present revision petition is allowed.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present revision petition, however, he is not in a position to refute the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties.

7. Considered the spirit of the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides as under:-

“147. Offences to be compoundable.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable”

8. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H reported at 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328, the Hon'ble Apex Court had formulated the guidelines for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act wherein in para 21, it was pleased to observe as under:-

"With regard to the progression of litigation in cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition, since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An application for compounding made after several years not only results in the system being burdened but the complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be followed:-

THE GUIDELINES (i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:

(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the f