[2025:RJ-JP:40736] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1180/2022 Ashok Kumar Dhanjha S/o Late Shri Swarooplal, R/o Siyaramji Nagar, Jawahar Ki Nadi, Chandravardai Nagar, Near C-Block, Ajmer (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer District Ajmer ) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Shri Neeraj Kumar Haldaniya S/o Shri Kishanlal, R/o 495/31, Shanti Nagar, Malusar Road, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saurabh Bhandari Mr. Amit Punia, Dy. GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/10/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer by which the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the judgment dated 08.08.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate No.5, Ajmer in Criminal Complaint Case No.261/17 has been rejected. 2. By passing the judgment dated 08.08.2019, the petitioner has been found to be guilty for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 1881”) and he has been sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and further a direction has been issued to pay compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- to the complainant-respondent. [2025:RJ-JP:40736] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1180/2022] 3. Learned counsels for the parties submit that a civil suit with regard to the similar dispute was pending between the parties before the Court of Additional District Judge No.3 bearing Case No.23/2014 wherein a compromise has taken place between them and reference of this instant case is also given in the memo of compromise in Para 4. Learned counsel submits that it has been agreed between the parties that vacant possession of the subject land would be given to the complainant-respondent-Neeraj Kumar and that he would not be receiving the sum of Rs.4,40,000/-. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid compromise, the said appeal has been decided and now the complainant does not want to prosecute the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid compromise, therefore, the petitioner be acquitted on the basis of the compromise. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that parties have settled their dispute and complainant-respondent does not want to prosecute the petitioner and considering the provisions of Section 147 of Act of 1881 and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is liable to be set aside. However, looking to the fact that parties have settled their dispute at the initial stage before this Court, a cost of 15% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in light of the [2025:RJ-JP:40736] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1180/2022] judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). 6. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 vide judgment dated 08.08.2019 and affirmed vide judgment dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Courts below are set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to deposition of cost of 15% of the cheque amount. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of four weeks from today. In case, the cost amount is not deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within the stipulated period, the revision petition may be listed before this Court for passing appropriate orders. 7. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur for necessary compliance. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/126