[2025:RJ-JP:29857] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1384/2025 Rajesh Kumar Sen son of Shri Noratmal Sen, Resident Of Balaji Rks Chilled Water Plot No 65 Indra Colony Madanganj Kishangarh District Ajmer At Present Central Jail Ajmer ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Bagdodia son of Shri Ramrikh Bagdodia, Resident Of Shivaji Nagar Madanganj Kishangarh District Ajmer ----Respondent/complainant 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Proforma/complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Pareek, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashvardhan Tolani, Respondent No.2 Mr. Sriram Dhakad, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 04/08/2025 S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.566/2025. Instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition. For the reasons & grounds mentioned therein, the application is allowed. The delay of 1086-days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. 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.12.05.2022 passed by Court of ld. Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.2, Kishangarh, District Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No.268/2019 (126/18) whereby the [2025:RJ-JP:29857] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1384/2025] appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.01.10.2018 passed by Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kishangarh, Ajmer, in Criminal Regular Case No.354/2017 convicting the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- to be paid to complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo six months 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.6,00,000/- 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 one year simple imprisonment alongwith compensation. The appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence awarded by the trial Court. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that the conviction warrants were issued/executed against the petitioner after passing of the judgment of appeal i.e. on 27.07.2025. The petitioner was sent to the judicial custody and he has been in judicial custody ever since. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:29857] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1384/2025] Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused 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, the complainant–Rajesh Kumar has appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court for verification of compromise, whereas the petitioner has not appeared as he is confined in jail but represented through his Counsel. The cost of Rs.25,000/- has also been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0005. 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.28.07.2025, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled and the complainant has received cheque 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:29857] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1384/2025] 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 in terms of compromise. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The petitioner is said to be in judicial custody. He shall be released from the prison forthwith, if not required in any other case. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK