[2026:RJ-JP:6313] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2116/2025 Geeta Devi W/o Kanhaiyalal, Currently Resident Of House No 23, Sarpanch Colony, Jaisinghpura-Khor, Jaipur (Raj) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor 2. Rajesh Sharma S/o Sh. Ramswaroop Sharma, R/o House No. 37-A, Pratap Nagar, Behind Of Golimar Garden, Amer Road, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Joshi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, Public Prosecutor Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 10/02/2026 : S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.43/2026. For the reasons & grounds mentioned therein, the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is allowed. The delay of 169-days in filing the revision petition is, hereby, condoned. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2116/2025 By way of filing the present revision petition under Section 438 r/w Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dt.08.02.2024 passed by Court of ld. Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), No.9, Jaiupr Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Regular (Complaint) Case No.967/2019, whereby ld. Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act & sentenced her to undergo three months simple imprisonment and [2026:RJ-JP:6313] (2 of 4) [CRLR-2116/2025] ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent, as compensation, and in default thereof, to further undergo one-month additional simple imprisonment. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dt.27.02.2025 passed by Court of ld. Special Judge (Sati Niwaran Cases) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Criminal Appeal No.33/2024, whereby ld. Judge, while dismissing the aforesaid appeal, has confirmed the judgment of conviction & the order of sentence passed by the ld. Magistrate. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the complainant- respondent filed a complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner before ld. trial Court alleging therein that the petitioner issued a signed cheque amounting to Rs.80,000/- to the complainant, which upon presentation were dishonoured & returned with the remarks "insufficient funds". The trial Court convicted the petitioner for alleged offence & sentenced her to undergo maximum period of three months simple imprisonment alongwith a fine. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal before ld. appellate Court, which was also dismissed, while confirming the conviction & sentence awarded by the ld. Magistrate. Hence, this revision. Today, both the parties are present-in-person before this Court. They have duly been identified by their respective Counsel & their signatures have been obtained on the order-sheet of the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner, contends that during pendency of the present revision petition, both the parties have entered into a compromise dt.07.11.2025 outside of the Court and the dispute between them has been amicably settled. No dispute now remains pending. Therefore, the present petition may be [2026:RJ-JP:6313] (3 of 4) [CRLR-2116/2025] allowed, the impugned orders be quashed & set aside and the petitioner be acquitted from the charges levelled against her. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the submissions made herein-above. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/ respondent No.2 does not wish to continue the matter & has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges levelled against her in terms of compromise. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material made available on record. The dispute is inter-se in between the parties and does not affect the society at large. The complainant has now entered into a compromise with the present petitioner. As per compromise dt.07.11.2025, complainant/respondent has entered into a settlement/agreement with the petitioner & received the complete disputed amount. He has no objection, if the impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted in terms of compromise. The aim & purpose of Section 138 of N.I. Act is not to punish the accused but to ensure that the due amount is duly returned to the complainant. Considering the nature of litigation under Section 138 of N.I. Act, in case the amount is paid and is duly accepted by the complainant, the matter should be compounded and the accused should be acquitted. In the present case, the amount of compensation has duly been accepted by the complainant and the compromise is a clear proof thereof. Since the parties have not entered into compromise at the first opportunity available to them and waited till disposal of the trial & [2026:RJ-JP:6313] (4 of 4) [CRLR-2116/2025] appeal and thereby wasted precious judicial time of the Court, in the interest of justice, a cost of Rs.5,000/- be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner shall deposit the above-said cost in the account of the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of one month from the date of this order and submit the receipt to this Court. Thus, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court deems it just and proper to acquit the petitioner from the charges and allow the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed & set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the charges levelled against her. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. List alongwith compliance report on 10.03.2026. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK