[2026:RJ-JP:25926] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 669/2026 URN: CRLR / 1238U / 2026 Indrajeet Singh S/o Ashok Singh, R/o 121, Gurunanakpura, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Second Address 203, Vaibhav Paradise, Moti Doongri, Jaipur. ----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. Ashok Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Misha Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Devi Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Anmol Dhakar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/07/2026 1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 read with Section 442 of BNSS, 2023 assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Criminal Case No.363/2015, whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo two year simple imprisonment along with fine to the tune of Rs.4,55,25,000/-. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur [2026:RJ-JP:25926] (2 of 4) [CRLR-669/2026] Metropolitan vide judgment dated 03.04.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.436/2018. 2. On the last occasion i.e. on 18.05.2026, it has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the present revision petition, the petitioner and the respondent No.2 have amicably resolved their dispute and the respondent No.2 has received the amount as full and final settlement from the petitioner and therefore does not want to proceed with this matter. Upon considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner to first deposit cost of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority, Jaipur and produced the receipt of the same before the Registrar (Judicial), of this Court and both the parties were also directed to appear before the Registrar (Judicial) for attestation of compromise on 03.07.2026 and posted the matter after completion of attestation proceedings on 06.07.2026. 3. In compliance of the order dated 18.05.2026, both the parties appeared before the Registrar (Judicial) on 03.07.2026 for verification and attestation of compromise and they were identified by their respective counsel. On their appearance, the Registrar (Judicial) verified and attested the compromise. The petitioner has also filed the receipt dated 19.06.2026 regarding deposition of cost of Rs.10,00,000/- as ordered by this Court. 4. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act begins with a ‘non obstante clause’ and provides that every offence punishable under the Act shall be compoundable notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now, BNSS, 2023). The legislative intent behind the incorporation of the said [2026:RJ-JP:25926] (3 of 4) [CRLR-669/2026] provision is to encourage settlement of commercial disputes arising out of dishonour of cheques and to facilitate compounding even after conviction, subject to the satisfaction of the Court. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663, has recognized that offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at different stages of the proceedings and has laid down broad guidelines regarding compounding. The said principle has subsequently been reiterated and liberalized in the case of M.P. State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jain, (2014) 10 SCC 690, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the object of Section 147 is to promote settlement and that the prescribed costs may be waived or reduced in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded. Furthermore, the Apex Court much recently in the case of Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., 2025 INSC 1158 had issued revised guidelines for compounding the offence. 6. Upon considering the fact that the dispute between the parties stands amicably settled and the complainant has received the entire settlement amount and in pursuance of the order dated 18.05.2026 the petitioner has deposited the cost amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide receipt no.0026 dated 19.06.2026 before the RSLSA, Jaipur and the factum of compromise has duly been verified by the Registrar (Judicial), no useful purpose would be served by continuing the conviction of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence deserves to be compounded in exercise of powers under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. [2026:RJ-JP:25926] (4 of 4) [CRLR-669/2026] 7. Accordingly, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted to be compounded. 8. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision Petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Criminal Case No.363/2015, as affirmed by the judgment dated 03.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No.436/2018 are hereby set aside. 9. The petitioner is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by virtue of compounding of the offence. 10. Any pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 391/Manoj Solanki