[2026:RJ-JP:8543]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1319/2024 Pawan Kumar Sharma son of Shri Birbal Kumar Sharma, Aged About

51 Years, Resident Of 275/38, Ashok Vihar Colony, Ajmer Rajasthan ----Accused-Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor

2. M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance, (A Division Of Inudind Bank Limited) Branch Office 9/86, Rang Vihar, Court Road, Ajmer Through Legal Executive And Authorised Signatory Brajendra Singh Shekhawat ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohitash Kumar Verma, Adv. with Ms. Monika Jhanjharia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Aayush Agarwal, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

24/02/2026 By way of filing the present revision petition under Section

438 r/w Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.25.11.2022 passed by Court of ld. Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, No.3, Ajmer, in Criminal Case/CIS No.4553/2017, 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.20,00,000/- 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.05.07.2024 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Ajmer, in Criminal Appeal No.107/2022, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence dt.25.11.2022 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 cheque amounting to Rs.10,45,219/- on 22.07.2006, which on presentation was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient funds". 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.

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-

petitioner are that during the pendency of the present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. In full & final settlement of the dispute, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.4,19,522/- with waivers against the original demand as per one-time-settlement & waivers approved by the Committee of the bank with the office of the respondent No.2. The complainant has received the disputed amount. No dispute now remains pending. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since long. Therefore, the present petition may be allowed, the impugned judgments 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.2 does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned judgments 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.24.02.2026, in full & final settlement of the dispute, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.4,19,522/- with waivers a