[2026:RJ-JD:9271]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 933/2024

1. Bhagwati Gupta S/o Dr. Birbal Gupta, Aged About 60 Years, R/o House No. 41, C Block,swami Dayanand Marg, Upside Icici Bank, Block Area, Sri Ganganagar,raj.

(Lodged In Jail)

2. Komal Gupta W/o Bhagwati Gupta, Aged About 58 Years, R/o House No. 41, C Block,swami Dayanand Marg, Upside Icici Bank, Block Area, Sri Ganganagar,raj. (Lodged In Jail)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Pawan Kumar S/o Krishna Lal, R/o Dhulpura, Teh.

Sadulshahar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar.

2. State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Pp ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gaur Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/02/2026

1. The instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 438 BNSS (397 Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 04.06.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Appeal No.104/2016 whereby the learned Appellate Judge has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2016 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.557/2012 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced the petitioner for one year’s SI for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act along with penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- and in default to further undergo 15 days’ Addl. SI.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent– complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioners, alleging dishonour of cheque and consequent statutory non-compliance. Upon due consideration of the pleadings, documentary evidence, and submissions advanced by both sides, the learned trial court, vide judgment dated 28.09.2016, recorded a finding of guilt and convicted the petitioners.

2.1. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred a criminal appeal before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. The appellate court, after reappreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence as rendered by the trial court. Hence the instant revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has moved I.A. No. 1/2026 seeking disposal of the present revision petition on the ground that the disputants have amicably settled their differences. It is submitted that the respondent–complainant has received, in a single consolidated payment, the entire sum advanced to the petitioners, and that no subsisting financial liability remains outstanding. A duly executed compromise deed has been placed on record in substantiation thereof.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent as also learned AGA for the State have candidly affirmed the factum of settlement and acknowledged receipt of the full and final payment.

5. Having accorded anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the compromise deed as well as the material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the matter in its proper legal perspective.

5.1. The genesis of the controversy lies in a purely private commercial transaction which culminated in prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. During the pendency of the present revisional proceedings, the parties have voluntarily and lawfully resolved their dispute by way of a compromise dated 28.01.2025, pursuant to which the petitioner has discharged the entire monetary obligation owed to the complainant. This position remains uncontroverted by the learned counsel for the respondent as well as by the learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

5.2. It is trite that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in character. The legislative intent underlying the provision is predominantly compensatory and remedial, designed to secure the credibility of commercial tr