HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 9/2010 Kamal Kumar Makker S/o Darshamial Makkad, Resident of 126, Gurunanakpura, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. (At Present Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. Beena Kumari W/o L. Col., M.P. Singh, Resident of A-4, Chittora House, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Since Deceased) 1/1. 2. Smt. Rachna Raghav W/o Late Madan Singh Raghav, aged about 65 years, R/o E-5, Jamna Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan) State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veerendra Singh with Ms. Manisha Meena for Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 01/12/2025 Nub of the case is that the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 18.12.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City Jaipur in Criminal Appeal No.16/09 (514/08) maintaining the judgment dated 11.06.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) & Judicial Magistrate (East), Jaipur city in Criminal Case No.18/2008 whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.I. Act’) and sentenced with 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner to undergo 1 month R.I. The respondent no.1 Beena Kumari expired on 10.02.2020. The petitioner submitted an application for substitution of her legal (2 of 3) [CRLR-9/2010] representative. This Court vide order dated 24.09.2025 allowed the application substituting Smt. Rachna Raghav, legal representative of respondent no.1 Beena Kumari. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. The learned counsels for both the parties have submitted that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through Rajasthan High Court Mediation Centre, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur and the report dated 01.11.2025 has been submitted, which is taken on record. According to the report, the petitioner was present and Rachna Raghav, legal representative of respondent no.1 was present alongwith her counsel Ram Mohan Sharma and both the parties have settled their dispute amicably. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both parties and have gone through material available on record. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the parties have settled their dispute amicably in presence of Mediator Satish Kumar Awasthi, Advocate. It is expressed that this revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise entered in between the parties through Medical Centre and the petitioner be set at liberty. As per Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to dispose of the revision petition on the basis of amicable (3 of 3) [CRLR-9/2010] settlement. Further, looking to the poor financial condition of the accused/ petitioner, this Court finds that it would be just and proper to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. Consequently, the original compromise annexed with the petition is taken on record, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments dated 18.12.2009 and 11.06.2008 passed by learned both the courts below are hereby quashed and set aside. The offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compounded and accused/ petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the basis of compromise. The petitioner is also exempted from depositing the cost. The petitioner is already on bail and his bail bonds stands discharged. Ordered accordingly. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/24