[2025:RJ-JP:44524] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2117/2016 Girdhari Yadav S/o Shri Rameshwar Yadav, R/o Lalpura, Jalsu, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur (Hal R/o 378 Radamala, Jhiri, Thana Ghazi, Distt. Jaipur) At Present Confined at Central Jail Jaipur ----Accused Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Renwal Construction Company, Kishangarh, Renwal, Distt. Jaipur, Through Proprietor Moolchand Yadav S/o Devraj Yadav ….Complainant/Non Petitioner 2. State Of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Choudhary, Advocate with Mr. Chinmaya Mudgal, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumawat, AdvocateMr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 06/11/2025 1. The matter comes up on an application no. 1/2025 filed under Section 528 BNSS (482 CrPC) for reconstituting the file. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this matter, the revision petition was admitted and sentence of the accused petitioner was suspended by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2017. Thereafter when both the parties entered into the compromise, the petitioner filed an application for early listing of the matter, which was allowed by this Court, but subsequently it came to the notice that the original file was [2025:RJ-JP:44524] (2 of 5) [CRLR-2117/2016] missing from the office. In this view of the matter, he filed an application for reconstituting S.B. Criminal Revision No. 2117/2016. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 directed the office to issue search slip for tracing out the missing file. Pursuant thereto, a search slip was issued on 31.10.2025 by the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court directing all the Section Administrative Officers and Bench Readers to search out the above file, but despite best efforts, the original file could not be traced out. He further submits that when both the parties have entered into the compromise and they are present today before this Court, the application be allowed, revision petition be reconstituted and be disposed of today itself in the light of the compromise. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent also admits that both the parties have entered into the compromise. He has no objection if the application is allowed, revision petition is reconstituted and decided finally today itself in view of the compromise. 4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and revision petition is ordered to be reconstituted at its original number. 5. Further, in view of the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and both the parties are present in person today in the Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard and the revision petition is decided finally at this stage. 6. By way of present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 1.12.2016 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in [2025:RJ-JP:44524] (3 of 5) [CRLR-2117/2016] Criminal Appeal No. 60/2016 (Girdhari Yadav Versus M/s. Renwal Construction Company and Anr.), whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment dated 20.5.2016 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 7237/2015 convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/-; in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo 5 month's simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire amount has been received by the respondent-complainant. He has, therefore, prayed that the revision petition may be allowed on the basis of compromise, the judgments passed by the courts below may be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has not disputed the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties. He, on instructions, from the complainant-respondent has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the complainant-respondent and thus, the complainant- respondent does not want further proceedings in the matter. He submits that the complainant-respondent has no objection, if the revision petition is allowed on the basis of compromise. 9. Today, the petitioner as well as the complainant-respondent both are present in person before this Court. Their presence has been [2025:RJ-JP:44524] (4 of 5) [CRLR-2117/2016] marked in the file, their signature have been obtained and they have been identified by their respective counsel. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made oral prayer for grant of exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. He has submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, who is facing financial crisis. On account of his poor economic condition, the petitioner has anyhow arranged the money and paid to the complainant-respondent in view of the compromise. He has also submitted that if any cost is imposed on the petitioner in relation to the compromise, it would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record. 12. From perusal of record, it reveals that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire money has been paid by the accused- petitioner to the complainant-respondent and in view of the compromise, the complainant-respondent does not want further proceedings in the matter. 13. As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, offence under Section 138 of the 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 compromise. 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. 14. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the judgments dated 1.12.2016 and 20.5.2016 passed by the courts below are [2025:RJ-JP:44524] (5 of 5) [CRLR-2117/2016] quashed and set aside. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and accused-petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of compromise. The petitioner is also exempted from depositing the cost. 15. Original compromise duly signed by both the parties has been handed over to the Court Master of the Court, which is taken on record. Original file of S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 2117/2016, if traced out in future, be tagged with the re-constituted file. 16. A copy of this order alongwith the record be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/48