[2025:RJ-JP:43408] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 760/2019 Rajesh Patwa S/o Shri Om Prakash Patwa, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 83 Rishi Galav Nagar Galta Gate Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Neena Gupta W/o Shri Paritosh Gupta, R/o 306 Anukampa -2nd Ajmeri Gage M.I. Road Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.S. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Chandra Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 29/10/2025 1. 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 25.3.2019 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No. 11/2018 (396/2018) (Rajesh Patwa Versus Neena Gupta), whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment dated 26.2.2018 passed by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 6221/2015 (Neena Gupta Versus Rajesh Patwa) convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the respondent-complainant; in default of payment of [2025:RJ-JP:43408] (2 of 4) [CRLR-760/2019] compensation, to further undergo 1 month's simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. 2. 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. He further submits that the matter was referred to the Mediation Center situated in Rajasthan High Court Premises, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, where the mediation remained successful and the petitioner as well as Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent-complainant expressed their desire before the Mediator that since both the parties amicably settled the matter, they do not want any further proceedings in the matter. He has, therefore, prayed that the revision petition may be allowed on the basis of compromise and the judgments passed by the courts below may be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not disputed the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties. He, on instructions, from the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent- complainant has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the respondent- complainant. He has, thus, submitted that the Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent-complainant has no objection, if the revision petition is allowed on the basis of compromise. 4. Today, the petitioner as well as Power of Attorney Holder of 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. [2025:RJ-JP:43408] (3 of 4) [CRLR-760/2019] 5. 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 would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record. 7. 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 Power of Attorney Holder of the respondent-complainant expressed their desire before the Mediator that since both the parties amicably settled the matter, they do not want any further proceedings in the matter. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent complainant. 8. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:43408] (4 of 4) [CRLR-760/2019] and proper to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. 9. Consequently, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments dated 25.3.2019 and 26.2.2018 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. 10. The report of the Mediator dated 10.9.2025 & compromise is taken on record. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/6