The central purpose of Section 138 of the N.I. Act is the recovery of funds; therefore, an amicable settlement and payment of the disputed amount justify the acquittal of the accused, although costs may be imposed for wasting judicial time by delaying the compromise.

Order

21/04/2026 :

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.17.06.2023 & partially amended sentence order dt.28.06.2023 passed by Court of ld. Pilot Steady Special Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Case No.1536/2023 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.29,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo one-month additional simple imprisonment.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.12.01.2026 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes), Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Appeal No.07/2023, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence dt.17.06.2023 & the partially amended sentence order dt.28.06.2023 passed by the ld. trial Court.

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 two cheques amounting to Rs.9,50,000/- & Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation were dishonoured & returned with the remarks of "Insufficient fund". 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 judgment of conviction & sentence dt.17.06.2023 & the partially amended sentence order dt.28.06.2023 passed by the ld. trial Court. Hence, this revision.

Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this Court. They have duly been identified by their respective Counsel & their signatures have also been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits that during pendency of present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. The complainant has received the disputed amount. 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.

An application bearing Inward No.2/2026 dt.12.02.2026 has also been filed by the petitioner praying therein that while taking on record the compromise dt.11.02.2026 the present revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise.

Learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the aforesaid submissions.

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent submitted that he 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.

Considering the submissions made at bar & the overall facts & circumstances of the case, and the fact that a compromise has been arrived at amicably between the parties, this Court finds that it would not be appropriate to sustain the judgment of the learned trial Court and the conviction of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Furthermore, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the