[2026:RJ-JP:11029] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1881/2016 Ashok Kumar Kasera, Proprietor, M/s Kasera Bandhej, Bardia Market, 72, Johari Bajar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan 2. Vimal Chand Bardia Son Of Sardar Mal Bardia, By Caste Jain, R/o Bardia Market, 72, Johari Bajar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mithu Bhai Chaturvedi & Mr. Anirudh Gupta for Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP None for complainant JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 16.03.2016, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.10 Jaipur Metropolitan, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C., for summoning the compromise the dated 17.10.2015 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel submits that several civil and criminal disputes between the petitioner and the respondent were lying pending before the Competent Court of law. During pendency of the aforesaid matters, both petitioner and respondent entered into a compromise and it was agreed between the parties that all pending cases would be disposed of in light of the terms and [2026:RJ-JP:11029] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1881/2016] conditions of the compromise. Learned counsel submits details of each and every case has been mentioned in para No.1 to 6 of the aforesaid compromise dated 17.10.2015. Learned counsel submits that the matters at para Nos.2 to 6 have already been disposed of in terms of the compromise between the parties but the matter mentioned in para 1 of the said compromise i.e., Criminal Appeal No.44/2014 arising out of the judgment passed by the Trial Court in criminal case no.161/2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 is still lying pending before the Appellate Court i.e., before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan. 3. Learned counsel submits that during pendency of the aforesaid appeal an application was submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the copy of the compromise dated 17.10.2025 from the Advocate Rajmal Jain. Learned counsel submits that photo copy of the said compromise was placed on record but the learned Appellate Court rejected the said application on a technical count that the validity of the said compromise and its effect would be looked into at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel submits that once the parties have settled their disputes, there was no reason or occasion available with the Appellate Court to pass such order, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 5. None has put appearance on behalf of the respondent/complainant despite of service. 6. Heard considering the submission made at Bar and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:11029] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1881/2016] 7. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the parties have settled their disputes in all the civil and criminal cases by way of entering into a compromise and executing the compromise dated 17.10.2015. 8. In total, there were six matters pending between the parties and five matters have already been decided on the basis of compromise dated 17.10.2015 except the appeal No.44/2014 which is pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Appellate Court is expected to decide the appeal on the basis of the terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the parties without insisting upon the petitioner to place the original of the same and in case the petitioner submits a certified copy of the aforesaid compromise before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court would pass appropriate orders. Looking to the terms and conditions of the compromise executed between the parties, expeditiously as early as possible. 9. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GAURAV SHARMA /32