[2025:RJ-JP:50768] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1884/2025 Sanjay Bakoliya Son Of Shri Tulsiram, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Raigeraan Mohallah, Near Ambedker Circle, Bari Basti Pushkar, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Kailash Luhar Son Of Shri Chotulal, Resident Of Luhar Basti, Opposite Mela Ground, Bari Basti, Pushkar Ajmer. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. S. Gaharana, Adv. Mr. Ankur Nagar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Bakoliya, petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Adv. for Mr. Dharmendra Jain, Adv. Mr. Kaiilash Luhar, respondent No.1 present in person HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 16/12/2025 1. Heard on application No.3/2025 for dispensing with the defect(s) pointed out by the Registry. 2. Office has pointed out that the petitioner has filed the revision petition without surrendering and as such there is no compliance of Rule 311(3) of the Rules of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, 1952. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier in the case of Vishnu Teli Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2011 (1) RLW 659, it has been held that it is not incumbent in [2025:RJ-JP:50768] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1884/2025] the cases of 138 of N.I. Act to surrender before maintaining the revision petition. The above judgment of Vishnu Teli has further been considered by Division Bench of this Court in order dated 16.02.2022 passed by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2668/2022 (Pawan Narayaniya Vs. Rajasthan High Court), where validity of sub Rule 3 of Rule 311 of Rajasthan High Court Rules was put to challenge and the Rule was read down in the light of judgment of Vishnu Teli (Supra) in the manner interpreted in the said judgment. 4. In the light of above, defect(s) pointed out by the Registry is overruled. 5. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed by Additional District Judge No.5, Ajmer (Rajasthan) (for short ‘the Appellate Court’), whereby appeal filed by him against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Pushkar (for short ‘the trial Court’) has been dismissed. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of judgment of Appellate Court, parties have entered into a compromise on 26.09.2025 which has also been placed on record. It is submitted that vide judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the trial Court, while convicting the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, sentence of one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. The aforesaid judgment was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner and the appeal has [2025:RJ-JP:50768] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1884/2025] been dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2025 and the judgment of trial Court dated 12.12.2023 has been confirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable in nature in view of Section 147 of N.I. Act. Recently in the case of Gian Chand Garg Vs. Harpal Singh & Anr. decided on 11.08.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8050/2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the earlier judgments has held that such compromise can be entered into by the parties at any stage, so far as the cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact that parties have entered into compromise and has also admitted that complainant has received the due amount and has executed the compromise without any influence of portion. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the Criminal Revision Petition. 10. Complainant is present in person and he does not dispute that compromise has been entered into between the parties. 11. In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the parties, where the parties have entered into compromise, in view of provisions of Section 147 of N.I. Act as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Chand Garg (Supra), the present revision petition deserves to be allowed. 12. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The judgment dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Appellate [2025:RJ-JP:50768] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1884/2025] Court as well as judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the trial Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner stands discharged of all the charges. 13. The Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application stands disposed of. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /100