Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vardhman Kirana Store vs Ramkalyan Saini S/O Kanwarlal Saini ... on 26 July, 2024
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:31636]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1145/2024
Vardhman Kirana Store, Sumerganj Mandi Prop Santosh Jain
Aged 59 Years S/o Manakchand Jain Vardhman Kirana Store
Sumerganjmandi Resident Of Sumerganjmandi Tehsil Indergarh
District Bundi (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Ramkalyan Saini S/o Kanwarlal Saini, Resident Of
Khedlimafi, Police Station Indergarh, District Bundi (Raj)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal with Ms. Gauri
Meena
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
26/07/2024
1. By way of present revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused- petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 21.06.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bundi in Criminal Appeal No. 92/2024 (Vardhman Kirana Store vs. Ramkalyan Saini & Anr.), whereby appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner against the Judgment dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Indergarh, District Bundi in Criminal Regular Case No. 79/2017 (Ramkalyan Saini vs. Vardhman Kirana Store), vide which accused-petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo one year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.4,00,000/- to be paid by him to the (Downloaded on 16/08/2024 at 09:53:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:31636] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1145/2024] respondent-complainant and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' additional simple imprisonment, has been dismissed.
2. A defect has been pointed out by the Office that Certificate under Rule 311(3) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules has been filed but not as per rules
3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that since both the parties have arrived at compromise, therefore, there remains no necessity of producing certificate under Rule 311(3) of the High Court Rules. He has, therefore, prayed that defect pointed out by the Registry may be waived.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, defect pointed out by the office is overruled.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has submitted that both the parties have entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire amount has been received by the respondent-complainant. A compromise to this effect executed between the parties has also been produced on record stating that pursuant to compromise, entire amount has been received by complainant and now nothing remains to be received by him, therefore, complainant does not wish to proceed further against the accused. He has, therefore, prayed that the compromise may be taken on record and the revision petition may be allowed on the basis of compromise and the judgments passed by the courts below may be set aside.
(Downloaded on 16/08/2024 at 09:53:13 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:31636] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1145/2024]
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not disputed the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties. He on instructions from respondent-complainant has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the respondent-complainant. He has, thus, submitted that respondent-complainant has no objection, if the revision petition is allowed on the basis of compromise.
8. Today, the accused-petitioner as well as respondent- complainant both are present in person before this Court. Their presence has been marked in the file and they have been identified by their respective counsel.
9. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has made oral prayer for grant of exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. He has submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, who is facing financial crisis. On account of his poor economic condition, the petitioner has anyhow arranged the money and paid to the complainant in view of the compromise. He has also submitted that if any cost is imposed on the petitioner in relation to the compromise, it would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record.
11. From perusal of record, it reveals that both the parties have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire money has been paid by the accused- (Downloaded on 16/08/2024 at 09:53:13 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:31636] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1145/2024] petitioner to the respondent-complainant, therefore, both the parties do not wish to continue the proceedings. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant.
12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire money has been received by the respondent-complainant and the poor financial condition of the accused-petitioner, this Court finds that it would be just and proper to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost and disposing of the revision petition on the basis of compromise.
13. Consequently, in view of compromise arrived at between the parties, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments dated 21.06.2024 and 07.06.2024 passed by the courts below are quashed and set aside. The accused-petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of compromise.
14. The trial court is directed to recall warrant of arrest, if any, issued against the petitioner immediately.
15. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court forthwith.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J INDER /357 (Downloaded on 16/08/2024 at 09:53:13 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)