[2025:RJ-JP:37502] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 999/2025 Premnarayan Vijay S/o Late Sh. Naval Kishor Vijay, Aged About 74 Years, Propiretor Firm M/s. New Vijay Medical Store New Colony Jaipur Presently Resident of 3650, Deena Nath Ji Ki Gali Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Ms Sakshi Medicos, Address 217, Dawa Bazar, Film Colony Jaipur Through Partner Rakesh Khandelwal S/o Sh. Raghunandan Khandelwal Aged About 62 Years R/o 77, Dhuleshwar Garden Gopalbadi Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma, Advocate & Mr. Ayush Agarwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor Mr. Chinmay Sharma, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 15/09/2025 : By way of filing instant revision petition under Section under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner/accused has challenged the judgment dt.14.05.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Case No.3502/2015, whereby ld. Magistrate had convicted & sentenced the petitioner as follows:- “For offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act.: The petitioner was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment. The petitioner/accused has also challenged the judgment dt.16.12.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Court (Sati Nivaran Cases) [2025:RJ-JP:37502] (2 of 4) [CRLR-999/2025] Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Appeal No.52/2024 whereby the ld. Judge, has dismissed the appeal while maintaining the order of conviction & sentence and increased the amount of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and default thereof from three months to two monthS additional imprisonment. 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.2,00,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was returned with the remarks “Account Closed”. 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 as well as appeal. 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 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 in terms 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. [2025:RJ-JP:37502] (3 of 4) [CRLR-999/2025] 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 & their signatures have also been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court. The cost of Rs.20,000/- has also been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0092. 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.21.05.2025, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled. 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. 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 in terms of compromise. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside [2025:RJ-JP:37502] (4 of 4) [CRLR-999/2025] 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