Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1645 (RAJ)

Bhupendra Singh v. Bharat Sanchihar

2011-08-09

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition is listed under the head 'Defect' for the reason that no information was given by the petitioner whether he is in custody or not. 2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the parties appeared along with accused and complainant both and submitted compromise arrived at in between the parties on 5.8.2011. On that date, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the office to tag the compromise application and list the petition on 8.8.2011. 3. Today, both the counsel are present along with complainant and accused and submit that in this matter compromise has been arrived at in between the parties, therefore, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (1) NIJ 321 (SC) : 2010 (1) WLC (SC) 745 , while compounding the offence, conviction may be set aside. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing order-sheet dated 5.8.2011, both the parties were directed to appear before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for verification of the compromise-decd and Deputy Registrar (Judicial) verified the compromise arrived at in between the parties and submitted before the Court which is hereby taken on record. 5. In this criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401, Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner challenged order dated 19.2.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Nathdwara in Case No. 20 of 2007, by which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 12.9.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Case No. 128 of 2004 was affirmed. By order dated 12.9.2007 the Trial Court convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the petitioner with one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 55,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the compromise arrived at in between the parties, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's (supra), while compounding the offence both the orders impugned in this petition may be quashed. 7. 55,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the parties submit that in view of the compromise arrived at in between the parties, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's (supra), while compounding the offence both the orders impugned in this petition may be quashed. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in 2010 (1) NIJ 321 (SC) = 2010 (1) WLC (SC) 745, in which, following adjudication has been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 2 of the judgment : "The present appeals are in respect of litigation involving the offence enumerated by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 'Act'). It is not necessary for us to delve into the facts leading up to the institution of proceedings before this Court since the appellant and the respondent have arrived at a settlement and prayed for the compounding of the offence as contemplated by Section 147 of the Act. It would suffice to say that the parties were involved in commercial transactions and that disputes had arisen on account of the dishonour of five cheques issued by the appellant. Thereafter, the parties went through the several stages of litigation before their dispute reached this Court by way of special leave persons. With regard to the impugned judgments delivered by the High Court of Bombay at Goa, the appellant has prayed for the setting aside of his conviction in these matters by relying on the consent terms that have been arrived at between the parties. The respondent has not opposed this plea and, therefore, we allow the compounding of the offence and set aside the appellant's conviction in each of the impugned judgments." 8. While following the aforesaid judgment, this revision petition is allowed. The conviction of the petitioner as noted above is quashed. Both the impugned judgments are set aside while accepting the compromise arrived at in between the parties and in terms thereof.Revision Petition allowed. *******