[2026:RJ-JP:8335]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 226/2026 Smt. Sushila W/o Shri Raju Goyal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Kailashpuri, Near Meera School, Ajmer (Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Pachulal, R/o Lohagal, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sogani, Advocate &

Ms. Khushi Chaturvedi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Complt., in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

23/02/2026 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.19.08.2019 passed by Court of ld. Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.2, Ajmer, in Criminal Regular Case No.1665/2017, whereby the 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 15-days additional simple imprisonment.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.28.01.2026 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Ajmer, in Criminal Appeal No.478/2019, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence dt.19.08.2019 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.1,90,000/- from the complainant. Towards repayment thereof, he given a cheque amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was dishonoured & returned with the remarks of "insufficient funds". 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.

Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused-

petitioner are that the sentence, so awarded to the petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dt.09.02.2026. During the proceedings relating to the release of the petitioner, a compromise has been arrived at between the parties & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. The complainant has received the disputed amount. No dispute now remains pending. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 28.01.2026 i.e. from the date of judgment of ld. Appellate Court. 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.

An application bearing Inward No.1/2026 dt.17.02.2026 has also been filed by the petitioner praying therein that while taking on record the compromise/affidavit dt.13.02.2026, the present revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

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 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