[2026:RJ-JP:24891] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1182/2026 URN: CRLR / 2154U / 2026 Sitaram Saini S/o Kishore Saini, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Shriram Nagar, Rajat Vihar Ke Pas, Plot No.10, Gram Daulatpura, Post Benad, Via Jhotwara, Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Nandkishore Kumawat S/o Nathulal Kumawat, Resident Of Village Bhatto Ki Gali, Nala Par Ki Dhani, Via Jahota, Amer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv. For Respondent(s) For respondent No.2. : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Mukesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/07/2026 1. Brother of the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.2 are present in person and they have duly been identified by their respective counsel. 2. The instant revision petition under Section 438 R/w Section 442 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Special Court (Sati Nivaran Cases), Rajasthan Jaipur and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Cr. Appeal NO.17/2025 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 07.12.2024 passed by the learned Special [2026:RJ-JP:24891] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1182/2026] Judicial Magistrate, NI Act Cases, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II whereby the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment along with fine in the sum of Rs.1,87,500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 20 days SI. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner and complainant-respondent No.1 have entered into a compromise in the spirit of Lok Adalat and the respondent No.1 has received the amount as full and final settlement from the petitioner and does not want to proceed in the matter. It is stated that since the parties have entered into compromise and amicably settled their dispute, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner may be set aside. Original settlement-deed dated 25.01.2026 is annexed with the petition. 4. Counsel for the complainant-respondent No.1 concurs the fact of compromise dated 25.01.2026 arrived at between the parties. 5. I have considered the submissions. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute amicably and complainant-respondent No.1 has accepted the sum towards full and final settlement of dispute and in the light of provisions of Section 147 of NI Act and in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663, the sentence awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act is liable to be set aside. [2026:RJ-JP:24891] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1182/2026] 7. Although, the compromise between the parties has been arrived at after the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, consideration the petitioner's precarious financial condition and the fact that the complainant has agreed to settle the dispute for a lesser amount, this Court is not inclined to impose the cost equivalent to 15% of the cheque amount upon the petitioner in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (Supra). 8. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act vide judgments dated 07.12.2024 and 16.03.2026 are set aside on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and the petitioner is hereby acquitted from the offence for which he was charged. Since, the petitioner is in confinement, he shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 9. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. 10. Application for suspension of execution of sentence is also decided. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 296/Manoj Solanki