[2025:RJ-JP:45711] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1801/2025 Imtyaz Khan S/o Kayyum Khan, R/o Kuwe Ke Paas, Mahskaan Mohalla, Khadi Bhandar Ke Samne, Ward Number 02, Amer, Jaipur ----Accused Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2. Dilshad S/o Sirajuddin, R/o Masjid Ke Piche, Mahskaan Mohalla, Ward Number 02, Amer, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. Govt. Advocate Mr. Monu Kumar, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 13/11/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, therefore, the objection raised by the registry that the Certificate under Rule 311(3) has not been filed in accordance with the Rajasthan High Court Rules, may be waived and the present revision petition may be decided in terms of the compromise. Learned counsel for the complainant also admits that both the parties have also entered into the compromise. He further submits that he has no objection if the objection no.3 raised by the registry is waived and the instant revision petition is decided on the basis of compromise. [2025:RJ-JP:45711] (2 of 5) [CRLR-1801/2025] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, the objection no.3 raised by the registry qua Certificate under Rule 311(3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules is waived. S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 820/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and the delay of 671 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the revision petition is being decided finally at this stage. By way of present revision petition under Section 438 readwith Section 442 of BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 17.8.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2021 (Imtyaj Khan Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.), whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and order dated 12.1.2021 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, H.Q. Amer in Regular Criminal Case No. 66/2016 (Dilshad Versus Imtyaj Khan) convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo 6 months’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months’ simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. At the very out-set, 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. The petitioner has filed an application No. [2025:RJ-JP:45711] (3 of 5) [CRLR-1801/2025] 1/2025 for taking the compromise on record, entered into between the parties. The original compromise, duly signed by both the parties, has been annexed with the application. He has, therefore, prayed that the application may be allowed, original compromise may be taken on record and on the basis of compromise, the revision petition may also be allowed and the judgments passed by the courts below may be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not disputed the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties. He, on instructions, of the respondent-complainant has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the respondent-complainant and he does not want any further proceeding in this matter. He has, thus, submitted that the respondent-complainant has no objection, if the application is allowed, original compromise is taken on record and revision petition is also allowed on the basis of compromise. Today, the petitioner as well as the respondent complainant both are present in person before this Court. Their presence has been marked in the file, their signature have been obtained and they have been identified by their respective counsel. 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 in view of the compromise. He has also submitted that if any cost is imposed on the petitioner in relation to the compromise, it [2025:RJ-JP:45711] (4 of 5) [CRLR-1801/2025] would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record. 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 respondent-complainant and the petitioner as well as the respondent-complainant expressed their desire that this revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise. 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. Consequently, the application is allowed and the original compromise duly signed by both the parties is taken on record. Further, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the present revision petition is also allowed and the judgments dated 17.8.2023 and 12.1.2021 passed by the courts below are 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. [2025:RJ-JP:45711] (5 of 5) [CRLR-1801/2025] Since the revision petition has been allowed on the basis of compromise, no order is required to be passed on the suspension of sentence application and the same stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/89