[2026:RJ-JP:939]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2363/2025

Jitendra S/o Late Shri Vishambahr Dayal, Aged About 40 Years,

R/o Near Blue Kesal Dharmshala, Ajmer.

(Presently Confined in Central Jail Ajmer)

----Accused Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Ravi S/ Shri Mohanlal, R/o S.M. Investment, Kabir Marg,

Kesarganj, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Addl. GA

For Complainant Ms. Nehal Kachhawa

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

09/01/2026

1. By way of present revision petition under Section 438 readwith Section 442 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 15.12.2025 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 456/2024 (Jitendra Versus Ravi & Anr.), whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer City (West), Ajmer in Regular Criminal Case No. 174/2020 (467/2017) (Shri Ravi Gupta Versus Shri Jitendra) convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo 2 years’ simple imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months’ simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.

2. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent-complainant have entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire amount has been received by the respondent-complainant. The original compromise has been annexed with the petition. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 15.12.2025. He has, therefore, prayed that the original compromise may be taken on record and on the basis of compromise, the revision petition may also be allowed and the petitioner be set at liberty.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not disputed the factum of said compromise. He, on instructions, of the respondent-complainant has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the respondent-complainant and he does not want any further proceeding in this matter. He has, thus, submitted that the respondent-complainant has no objection, if the original compromise is taken on record, revision petition is also allowed, impugned judgments are set-aside on the basis of compromise and the petitioner is set at liberty.

4. Today, the respondent complainant is present in person before this Court. His presence has been marked in the file, his signature has been obtained on the Court’s order sheet and he has been identified by his counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made oral prayer for grant of exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. He has submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, who is facing financial crisis. On account of his poor economic condition, the petitioner has anyhow arranged the money and paid to the complainant in view of the compromise. He has also submitted that if any cost is imposed on the petitioner in relation to the compromise, it would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record.

7. From perusal of record, it reveals that the petitioner and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire money has been paid to the respondent-complainant and the respondent-complainant expressed his desire that this revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise and the petitioner be set at liberty.

8. As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable, there