[2025:RJ-JP:38606] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1554/2025 Guddi Devi Prajapat W/o Ramesh Chand Prajapat, R/o 188, Naath Mohalla Rawal District Sawai Mahopur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. M/s Jain Motor Finance Company, Through Partner Sanjeev Ranka S/o Sohan Lal Ranka R/o 0-2, Third Floor Ambar Tower Sansar Chand Road Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, P.P. Mr. Manish Parihar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 19/09/2025 : 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.14.07.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Appeal No.21/2024 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.21.09.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act Cases, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Regular Case No.5420/2018 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.68,000/- to be paid to the complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo one month additional simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. [2025:RJ-JP:38606] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1554/2025] 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.49,650/- 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. Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this Court. They have duly been identified by their Counsel & their signatures have been obtained on the order-sheet of the 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 on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent No.2 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. [2025:RJ-JP:38606] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1554/2025] 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, the cost of Rs.5,000/- has been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0008. As per compromise/NOC dt.26.07.2025, 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 on the basis 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. [2025:RJ-JP:38606] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1554/2025] 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 her. The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK