[2025:RJ-JP:6689] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 395/2022 1. M/s Hanuman Tubewell Company, Station Road, Jaipur And Opposite Airport Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur 2. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Babulal Sharma, Partner, M/s. Hanuman Tubewell Company Opposite Airport Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. R.U Oswal S/o Late Shri R.c. Oswal, R/o C-19, Milborn House, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 396/2022 1. M/s Hanuman Tubewell Company, Station Road, Jaipur And Opposite Airport Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur 2. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Babulal Sharma, Partner, M/s. Hanuman Tubewell Company Opposite Airport Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. R.U Oswal S/o Late Shri R.c. Oswal, R/o C-19, Milborn House, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sandeep Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A Mr. Vipin Sharma Mr. Amit Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 14/02/2025 1. The matter comes up on an application No.1/2025 filed in both the petitions filed by the petitioners to dispose of the matter [2025:RJ-JP:6689] (2 of 3) [CRLR-395/2022] on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and quash and set aside order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners. 2. Petitioner-Ashok Kumar Sharma and respondent No.2-R.U Oswal both are personally present before this Court today and duly identified by their counsel. 3. As per the brief facts of the case two prosecutions under Section 138 of N.I Act were launched by respondent No.2 one being Case No.294/2014 and the second is Case No.800/2014 against the petitioners. Both the cases were disposed of by Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) and the petitioners were convicted and sentenced for one year simple imprisonment. Appeals were filed by the petitioners one being appeal No. 11/2020 and the other Appeal No.12/2020 and the Appellate Court while dismissing the appeals upheld the order of conviction and sentence vide order dated 21.03.2022. Aggrieved of the orders, the present petitions have been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that in these matters the parties have arrived at compromise and both these matters have been settled for the amount of Rs.41,00,000/-, which has been paid to respondent No.2 by the petitioners. 5. Respondent No.2 is personally present before this Court and admits the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and admitted the fact that he has received the amount and he has no objection if the petitions are disposed of. 6. Both the parties submitted the compromise deed dated 14.02.2025 in the petition No.395/2022 and unequivocally submitted that as the matter has been settled, therefore, the [2025:RJ-JP:6689] (3 of 3) [CRLR-395/2022] order of conviction and sentence dated 25.02.2017 be quashed on the basis of compromise. 7. This Court also interacted with the parties particularly, as the complainant, who is the victim of the case, reiterated that he has no objection if the matter is disposed of on the basis of compromise. 8. In that view of the matter, as the cases are compoundable, therefore, both these revision petitions are disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties and orders of trial Court in Case No.800/2014 dated 25.02.2017 and in Case No.294/2014 dated 25.02.2017 and the orders of Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.11/2020 dated 21.03.2022 and in Criminal Appeal No.12/2020 dated 21.03.2022 are quashed and set aside. 9. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J TANISHA /81-82