[2026:RJ-JD:9328]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 213/2026 Sushil Vaishnav S/o Madan Das Vaishnav, Aged About 38 Years, H.n.37 Shrinath Colony Jharno Ki Saray Debari District Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Prashant Teli S/o Pushkar Teli, Aged About 31 Years, Bujhda Tehsil Girwa Dist Udaipur

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP Mr. Hitendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/02/2026

1. There is a delay of 617 days in filing of the instant revision petition.

2. The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

3. Owing to acute financial constraints, the petitioner and his family members were unable to file the instant revision petition at the relevant time. It is stated that upon arranging the requisite resources, they promptly contacted their counsel and, after obtaining the certified copies and necessary papers from the court concerned, proceeded without any further delay to institute the present petition.

4. The explanation furnished reflects that the delay occasioned in filing the revision petition is neither deliberate nor intentional, but attributable to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances. The cause shown appears to be sufficient within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. For the reasons and grounds mentioned in the application, which are found to be just and satisfactory, the same is allowed. 6. Consequently, the delay of 617 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.

7. The instant revision petition shall be treated as having been filed within limitation.

8. The present revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Udaipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 360/2023, whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No. 4, Udaipur, in Criminal Regular Case No. 9127/2017. Vide the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo one year’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

9. The brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondent–complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act alleging that the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- for personal needs and, in discharge thereof, issued a cheque which, upon presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Despite service of statutory notice, the petitioner failed to make payment within the stipulated period, whereupon the complaint was filed. After trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner vide judgment dated 14.06.2023, which came to be affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 28.02.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned judgments and submits that the dispute arises out of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act and that, during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved their inter se dispute and arrived at a lawful compromise outside the court.

11. In view of the compromise dated 17.11.2025 and considering the nature of the offence, which is essentially compensatory and private in character, this Court deems it appropriate to give effect to the settlement so as to advance the ends of justice and to encourage amicable resolution of disputes, however, this Court is of the considered view that costs deserve to be imposed upon the petitioner. The imposition of costs is