[2026:RJ-JP:7586] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3387/2022 Indrajeet Singh S/o Ashok Singh, R/o 121, Gurunanakpura, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Second Address-203, Vaibhav Paradise, Moti Doongri Circle, Jaipur. ----Accused Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Kumar Vikalp S/o S.K. Jha, R/o B-88, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Addl. GA Mr. J.K. Moolchandani, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 17/02/2026 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed by the accused petitioner against the judgment and order dated 3.4.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short, ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No. 436/2018 titled Inderjeet Singh Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr., whereby the appeal filed by the accused petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 passed by Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short, ‘the trial court’) in Cr. Complaint Case No. 363/2015 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act and sentencing him to undergo 2 years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 4,55,25,000/- to be paid to the respondent no.2-complainant; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months’ simple imprisonment, has been affirmed. [2026:RJ-JP:7586] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3387/2022] 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner and the respondent no.2 have amicably settled the dispute and entered into a compromise on 23.12.2021. 3. He also submits that on 16.10.2025 when the matter was listed before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it was submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance amount to the respondent no.2/complainant, under the compromise, within a period of three weeks from that day. On that basis, the matter was adjourned and was directed to be listed thereafter. Hence, the present criminal misc. petition is maintainable before this Court. 4. He further submits that the petitioner has now paid the remaining amount to the respondent no.2/complainant, hence all the criminal proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. 5. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh Versus State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 and the order dated 31.1.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gorishankar Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 349/2022); decided on 31.1.2022. He has also submitted the written submissions, which are available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. 7. Learned Addl. GA appearing for the State has opposed the same and submits that on the basis of complaint filed by the respondent no.2/complainant, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court vide its judgment and order dated [2026:RJ-JP:7586] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3387/2022] 21.12.2017 for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act as mentioned above. He filed a Criminal Appeal and the appellate court vide its judgment and order dated 3.4.2019 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the trial court. He further submits that since the petitioner was not present before the appellate court at the time of passing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2019, a warrant of arrest was issued against him for serving out the sentence. The petitioner neither surrendered before the trial court for serving out the sentence nor he is present today before this Court. He did not file a criminal revision petition challenging the judgments and orders passed by the courts below in time and after more than three years of passing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2019, he filed this Criminal Misc. Petition in the year 2022 challenging the judgments and orders dated 3.4.2019 and 21.12.2017 passed by the courts below on the basis of compromise, which is not maintainable. 8. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra) has held that the offences punishable under the special statutes are not covered by Section 320 CrPC and the revisional Court is competent to allow any person to compound any offence who is competent to compound. 9. He further submits that their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under Section 320. In the instant case, on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent [2026:RJ-JP:7586] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3387/2022] no.2/complainant, the impugned judgments and orders have been passed, thus, no question does arise to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record. 11. For ready reference, Section 397 CrPC is reproduced as under: “Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.-(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record. Explanation.-All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398. (2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. (3) If an application under this Section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.” [2026:RJ-JP:7586] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3387/2022] 12. Though Section 482 of the CrPC grants inherent powers to the High Courts to prevent the abuse of the process of any law and to secure the ends of justice, but this discretion is not absolute and is intended for the benefit of bonafide litigants. The powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised with great restraint, only when no other remedy exists under the CrPC and specifically to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Section 482 powers are meant for genuine cases, and not to assist those who evade statutory consequences. 13. In the present matter, although it is stated that a compromise has been entered into between the parties, but today both the parties are not present in person before this Court for attestation and verification of the compromise. Further, a person who has been convicted by a trial court and whose sentence is upheld by an appellate court, subsequently absconds for a long period, undermines the finality of judicial orders, allowing such a person to invoke the powers of Section 482 CrPC, such as seeking to quash proceedings would effectively nullify binding judicial pronouncements, rendering the judicial system toothless. 14. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the aforesaid legal provision, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner ought to have filed a criminal revision petition challenging the judgment and orders passed by the courts below, but instead of filing a criminal revision petition challenging the judgments and orders dated 3.4.2019 and 21.12.2012 passed by the courts below, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal misc. petition for quashing and setting aside the judgments and orders dated 3.4.2019 and 21.12.2017 passed [2026:RJ-JP:7586] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3387/2022] by the courts below and, that too, after more than three years from the date of passing the judgment and order dated 3.2.2019, which is not maintainable. 15. The judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gorishankar (supra) does not apply in the instant case as in this case, the petitioner neither appeared before the appellate court at the time of passing the judgment and order dated 3.4.2019 nor he surrendered before the trial court. 16. The Criminal Misc. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 17. However, if the petitioner feels aggrieved, he is at liberty to file a criminal revision petition challenging the impugned judgments and orders passed by the courts below. 18. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J DK/1