[2026:RJ-JD:13119]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 378/2026 Riyan Ahmed S/o Mehboob Ali, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Makrana, P.s. Makrana District Nagaur (Raj.) (At Present Central Jail, Ajmer)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Laxman Ram S/o Sona Ram, R/o Makrana, P.s. Makrana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devilal R. Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, DyGA Mr. Rakesh Gupta, for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

18/03/2026

1. The instant criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Makrana in Criminal Appeal No.129/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed on account of non-compliance of the condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana in Regular Criminal Case No.291/2015, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs.3,50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment, stood affirmed/revived.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the appeal, the parties had amicably settled their dispute and a compromise was arrived at between them and the entire due amount has already been paid to the complainant- respondent in full satisfaction of his claim. It is submitted that the petitioner could not comply with the condition of depositing 20% of the fine amount on account of circumstances beyond his control, including his absence from the district, and resultantly, the appeal came to be dismissed without effective adjudication on merits. It is further submitted that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable in nature and in view of full payment having been made, continuation of criminal proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent, on instructions, does not dispute the factum of compromise and receipt of the entire due amount and submits that the complainant has no objection if the offence is compounded and the judgments passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent and perused the material available on record.

5. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the entire due amount has been paid by the petitioner to the complainant-respondent and the parties have entered into a compromise. The compromise deed has been placed on record. The complainant-respondent has received the full amount towards the cheque in question and has expressed his consent for compounding of the offence. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act being compoundable in nature, and the dispute having been settled in entirety, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of the conviction would serve no fruitful purpose and the matter deserves to be given a quietus.

6. Upon due consideration of the submissions made and in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the instant criminal revision petition.

7. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision petition is allowed. The judgment dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana in Regular Criminal Case No.291/2015 and the order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Makrana in Criminal Appeal No.129/2019 are hereby quashed and set aside, and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument