[2025:RJ-JP:33934] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 444/2025 Chiranjilal son of Shri Bhorilal, Resident of Behind Baba Properties, Kalwar Phatak, Shiksha Sagar Colony Govindpura Road, Sanganer, District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. Rajkumar son of Shri Bandhilal, Resident of Plot No. 76/264, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, District Jaipur Rajasthan 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Meena, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 26/08/2025 : Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by judgment dt.19.02.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Head- quarter Sanganer, in Criminal Appeal No.16/2024 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.05.03.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Metropolitan Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), No.12, Headquarter Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in Criminal Case No.2838/2020 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to be paid to complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:33934] (2 of 4) [CRLR-444/2025] Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this Court and they have duly been identified by their respective Counsel and their signatures have been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court. Case of the prosecution is that the complainant-respondent has filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before ld. trial Court alleging therein that petitioner had issued two cheques amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- & Rs.6,95,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation were returned with the remarks “insufficient funds”. The trial Court has convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of one year simple imprisonment alongwith compensation. The ld. Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence awarded by the ld. trial Court. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that the petitioner was on bail during trial and presently, he is not in custody. During pendency of revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise dt.11.05.2025 & the dispute between them has been amicably settled in the spirit of Lok-Adalat. 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 on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that he has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him on the basis of compromise. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments and the material made available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:33934] (3 of 4) [CRLR-444/2025] 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. In compliance of the order dt.26.05.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, both the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of compromise on 28.05.2025 & they have duly been identified by their respective Counsel. The cost of Rs.75,000/- has been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0021. Registrar (Judicial) has verified & attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which has been taken on record. As per compromise dt.11.05.2025, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled and the complainant has already received the disputed amount. The complainant does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him in terms of compromise. The aim & purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not to punish the accused but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act in case the amount is paid and is duly accepted by the complainant, the matter should be compounded and the accused should be acquitted. In the present case, the amount of compensation has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise is a clear proof thereof. [2025:RJ-JP:33934] (4 of 4) [CRLR-444/2025] Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just & proper to acquit the petitioner from the charges & allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed on the basis of compromise. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK