##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:12701]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 64/2026 Rakesh Mangal S/o Late Sookaram, R/o Keshavpura, Hindaun City,

District Karauli, Presently R/o Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

Rameshchand S/o Bhorya, R/o Phailipura, Police Station Sadar Hindaun City, District Karauli.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Galav, Advocate

Mrs. Manju Dave, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

25/03/2026 :

The defect pointed out by the Registry is waived.

The revision petition is taken up on the Board for orders.

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.30.08.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun City, in Criminal Regular Case No.687/2014 (22/2014) whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to

further undergo three-months additional simple imprisonment.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment

dt.16.12.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge,No.2, Hindaun City District Karauli, in Criminal Appeal No.87/2025, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 11:34:50 AM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 12:03:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12701] (2 of 4) [CRLR-64/2026] judgment of conviction & the order of sentence dt.30.08.2025 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 borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant for his personal necessity. Towards repayment thereof, he issued a cheque amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was dishonoured & returned with the remarks of "Account block". The trial Court convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of one year 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. Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this

Court. They have duly been identified by respective Counsel and their

signatures have been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner

submits that the petitioner was on bail during the trial as well as the appeal. During pendency of present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. No dispute now remains pending. Counsel further submits that since a compromise has been arrived at between the parties by way of mutual consent, no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged offence. 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.

(Uploaded on 27/03/2026 at 11:34:50 AM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 12:03:11 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12701] (3 of 4) [CRLR-64/2026]

Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent, alongwith

the complainant himself (Nihalchand Mehta), who is present in the Court submitted that they have 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.

Considering the submissions made at bar & the overall facts

& circumstanc