[2026:RJ-JP:11150]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 981/2023 Anil Agarwal Son Of Shri Mangilal Agarwal, Resident Of 8/114, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039 ----Petitioner Versus

1. Mahaveer Prasad Yadav, S/o Shri Harchand Yadav, Resident Of Village Ladpura Post Harsora, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, At Prsent-Kotputli District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Aman Lodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

1 6/03/2026 By way of filing the present revision petition under Section

397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.01.04.2019 passed by Court of ld. Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.5, Jaipur Metro, in Regular Criminal (Complaint) Case No.793/2016(199/2011), whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.8,80,000/- to the complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo two months additional simple imprisonment.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.15.05.2023 passed by Court of ld. Additional Session Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro-I, in Criminal Appeal No.09/2019, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence passed by the ld.

Magistrate.

Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the complainant-

respondent filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before ld. trial Court alleging therein that the petitioner issued a several cheques amounting to Rs.16,25,000/- to the complainant, which upon presentation were dishonoured & returned with the remarks "Account Closed". The trial Court convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of two years simple imprisonment alongwith a fine. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before ld. appellate Court, which was also dismissed, while confirming the conviction & sentence awarded by the ld. Magistrate. Hence, this revision petition has been filed. Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this Court. They have duly been identified by their respective Counsel & their signatures have been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, contends that during pendency of the present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise dt.08.01.2026 outside of the Court and the dispute between them has been amicably settled. No dispute now remains pending. Therefore, the present petition may be allowed, the impugned orders be quashed & set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against him.

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent No.1 does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against him in terms of compromise.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record.

The dispute is inter-se in between the parties and does not affect the society at large. The complainant has now entered into a compromise with the present petitioner.

As per compromise dt.08.01.2026, complainant/respondent has entered into a settlement/agreement with the petitioner & received the complete disputed amount. He has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted in terms of compromise.

The aim & purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not t