[2026:RJ-JD:13272]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 166/2026 Nand Ram S/o Bagtawar Gurjar, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Barola Ka Kheda, Post Kabradiya, Police Station Mandal, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Dhan Singh S/o Vishnu Singh Chundawat, Resident Of Malas, Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Patel Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/03/2026

1. The instant criminal revision petition is barred by limitation from 170 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been preferred. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner explaining the delay and being satisfied with the same, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the revision petition is condoned.

2. By filing the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.19/2020 (CIS No.39/2020)

affirming the judgment dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandal, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.200/2012, whereby, the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and further ordered to pay fine of Rs.55,000/- and one year SI and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo simple imprisonment of six months.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After completion of trial, he was found guilty and thus, was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. The judgment of conviction was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing a criminal appeal but the same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 14.05.2025, hence the present revision petition has been filed.

4. The parties have entered into a compromise and have settled the dispute amicably. Copy of Compromise deed dated 16.03.2026 has been placed on record. Parties have resolved the dispute since the petitioner has paid the due amount satisfying the respondent- claimant. As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable without taking permission of the court. Thus, it is jointly prayed that the judgment of conviction as well as the order of appeal be quashed and set aside.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record and gone through both the judgments as well as the compromise deed wherein it is recited that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and the complainant does not wish to continue the proceedings.

6. Since the precious time of the court has been wasted in the entire criminal proceedings and now, the parties have arrived at a compromise at a belated stage, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to impose cost of proceedings upon the accused.

7. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the statutory provision in this regard, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mandal District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No.200/2012 and the judgment in appeal dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases Bhilwara in Criminal Appeal No.19/2020 are quashed and set aside. The accused is acquitted from the charges. However, since the dispute has been resolved after long lapse of time and the precious time of the Courts have been spent by the parties, thus, in light of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. S