[2025:RJ-JP:36768] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1636/2025 Smt. Sonu, wife of Shri Pramod, Komal Medical And Provision Store, 22/11/02, Swanr Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur And Resident Of House No. 25-A, Vishveshsariya Nagar, Extension, Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur. ----Petitioner/accused Versus 1. Rahul S/o Shri Satish Chand, Resident of House No. 30, Tirupati Vihar, Mangyawas, Mansarovar, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur. 2. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhi Goyal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. L.L. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 10/09/2025 : 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.29.08.2025 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Appeal No.34/2024 whereby the appeal filed by complainant has been allowed & the judgment dt.29.08.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Regular Case No.369/2023 acquitting the petitioner from offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been set aside and sentenced her to undergo one year simple imprisonment alongwith compensation amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo three months [2025:RJ-JP:36768] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1636/2025] additional simple imprisonment. Out of total compensation amount, Rs.8,00,000/- was ordered to be paid to the complainant. 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 two cheques amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- & Rs.4,85,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation was returned with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangements”. The trial Court has acquitted the petitioner from the alleged offence. Thereafter, respondent/complainant filed an appeal before ld. Appellate Court whereby the said Court while allowing the appeal convicted the petitioner for the alleged offence and sentenced her to undergo one year simple imprisonment alongwith fine. Submissions of learned counsel appearing for the accused- petitioner are that 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 order 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. The cost of Rs.50,000/- has also been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt [2025:RJ-JP:36768] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1636/2025] No.0082. 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.02.09.2025, both the parties have entered into a compromise & the dispute between them has been amicably settled and the complainant has received the disputed amount. The complainant does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned order is 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 judgment dt.29.08.2025 is, hereby, 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