[2025:RJ-JP:38398] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1344/2025 Nitu Kriplani W/o Shri Prakash Lalwani, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 110/c/108 Vyas Apartment Sector-1 Opposite Samudaik Kendra Pratap Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor 2. Jethmal Agarwal S/o Ramswaroop Agarwal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Plot 595 Devi Nagar New Sanganer Road Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Gotecha Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 18/09/2025 : Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved by judgment dt.08.04.2025 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge (Sati Niwaran Cases) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Appeal No.21/2023 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.19.07.2023 passed by Court of ld. Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Regular Case No.1057/2023 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentencing her to undergo six months simple imprisonment alongwith compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:38398] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1344/2025] 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.3,00,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was returned with the remarks “insufficient fund”. The trial Court has convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced her 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 her 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. 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.30,000/- has also been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide [2025:RJ-JP:38398] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1344/2025] receipt No.0001. Registrar (Judicial) has verified & attested the compromise arrived at between the parties and submitted his report, which is taken on record. As per compromise/affidavit dt.21.06.2025, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled and the complainant has received the complete 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 her 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 and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against her. The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J. ashok [2025:RJ-JP:38398] (4 of 3) [CRLR-1344/2025]