[2025:RJ-JP:37180] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1890/2023 Sattar son of Usman Gani, Aged About 35 Years, Resident of Ward No 26, Mohalla Teliyan, Town Fatehpur District Sikar (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus Omprakash son of Sukhdevaram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Dholas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Omprakash, present-in-person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 12/09/2025 : Instant revision petition has been filed on behalf of accused/ petitioner under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by judgment dt.18.08.2023 passed by Court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, Sikar, in Criminal Regular Appeal No.26/2022 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed & the judgment dt.30.09.2022 passed by Court of ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur District Sikar, in Criminal Regular Case No.524/2015 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs.4,10,000/- to be paid to the complainant & in default thereof, to further undergo three 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.2,50,000/- to the complainant, which on presentation [2025:RJ-JP:37180] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1890/2023] 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. In the present case, the petitioner was on bail during trial & appeal and presently, he is confined in jail. 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 deserves to 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 the respondent present-in-person. Perused the impugned orders as well as 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.20,000/- has been deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur vide receipt No.0088, which is taken on record. As per compromise, both the parties had some financial dealings. The amount payable to complainant has been mutually settled between them. 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. [2025:RJ-JP:37180] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1890/2023] 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 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