[2025:RJ-JP:32005] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 929/2025 1. Suraj Singh Son Of Shri Bajrang Singh, Resident Of 113, Narsingh Colony, Purani Basti Ward No. 61 Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Suraj Singh Proprietor, Shyam Enterprises Address G-15 Morija Residency Raja Mishrajaji Ka Indira Bazar Jaipur ----Petitioners/accused Versus 1. Rajesh Sharma Son Of Shri Musudi Lal Sharma, Resident Of 117, Barkat Nagar Tonk Phatak Jaipur Rajasthan 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mirza Farooq Baig, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sain, Advocate Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 14/08/2025 : S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.394/2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that inadvertently, he has filed an application u/S.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition whereas it is within time, and therefore, he may be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid application. Permission as sought for is granted. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, hereby, dismissed as withdrawn. Matter has come up on an application bearing Inward No.1/2025 dt.05.06.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. 2023 praying therein that while taking on record the compromise, the present revision petition may be disposed of on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:32005] (2 of 4) [CRLR-929/2025] The revision petition is taken up on the Board of hearing. Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 438 & 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by judgment dt.07.05.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Appeal No.32/2024 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.04.10.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Criminal Original Case No.2622/2021 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentencing him to undergo six months simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.30,000/- to be paid to complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo one month additional imprisonment, has been affirmed. 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 a cheque amounting to Rs.20,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was returned with the remarks “insufficient funds”. The trial Court has convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced him to undergo maximum period of six months 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 & appeal and presently, he is not in custody. During pendency of revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled and now the complainant does not wish [2025:RJ-JP:32005] (3 of 4) [CRLR-929/2025] to continue the matter. 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. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments and 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 the present petitioner. In compliance of the order passed by this Court today, both the parties have appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of compromise & they have duly been identified by their respective Counsel. The cost of Rs.5,000/- has also been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0025. Registrar (Judicial) has verified & attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which is taken on record. As per compromise dt.04.06.2025, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:32005] (4 of 4) [CRLR-929/2025] 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. 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/