[2025:RJ-JD:53576]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1660/2025

Sudam Khan S/o Najar Khan, Aged About 31 Years, Aman

Enclave, Chak 3A, Choti, Sadbhawna Nagar, Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Gurcharan Singh S/o Shri Mithu Singh, Chak 3 A Choti,

Sadbhawna Nagar, Sri Ganganagar

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Jagga.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.

Mr. Rahul Bishnoi for Mr. Shardul

Singh Bishnoi.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

10/12/2025

This revision petition has been filed against the judgment

dated 19.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Shriganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.11/2021 by which, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.1, Srigangangar, in Criminal Regular Case No.17/2017 (CIS No.378/2017) convicting and sentencing affirmed. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment along with fine in the sum of Rs.1,10,000/-.

In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 30 days’ simple imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.2 have entered into a compromise and the respondent No.2 has received the whole 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.

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

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the instant criminal revision petition, however, he does not dispute the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties.

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

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 Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025 INSC 1158), the sentence 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 7.5% 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 Sanjabij Tari (supra).

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act vide judgments dated 19.11.2025 and 22.09.2021 are hereby set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to deposition of cost of 7.5% 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.

The revision petition is allowed in the above terms.

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

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J

84-/Jitender//-