Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 790 (RAJ)

Babu Lal Taksali v. State of Rajasthan.

2013-04-22

NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN II

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - An application(I.A. No. 2966/2013) has been filed before this Court by the petitioner stating therein that a compromise has been entered into between the accused-petitioner and Respondent No. 2/Complainant, copy of which has been annexed with the application. The petitioner-accused and Respondent No. 2-Complainant are also present in person before this Court and they have been identified by their respective counsel. According to the compromise, the complainant had agreed for lump sum amount of Rs. 1,27,500/- and the accused-petitioner has paid Rs. 80,000/-(Rupees Eighty Thousands) in cash before the Executing Court to Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2-complainant shall further be entitled to receive Rs. 47,500/- lying deposited with Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Therefore, she does not wish to pursue any criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner. 2. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in 2010(2) RLW 1599(SC) has observed that considering the large number of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Court should encourage on compounding of offence. The spirit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is not so much as to punish the accused, but is moreso to ensure that the amount owed by the accused is realised by the complainant. 3. In the present case, since the parties have arrived at a compromise, the application(I.A. No. 2966/2013) is allowed and the copy of compromise executed by the parties before the executing court and annexed with the application is taken on record. 4. Since the parties have entered into a compromise, Rs. 80,000/- had already been paid by the petitioner to Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2-complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 47,500/-, as per the compromise, this Court quash and set aside the judgment dated 24.03.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 428/2006 and judgment dated 27.09.2008 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No. 4, Jaipur City in Criminal Appeal No. 25/2008(293/2008). The accused-petitioner, Babu Lal Taksali S/o. Chand Mal is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided he shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur City, Jaipur within 15 days from today. The accused-petitioner, Babu Lal Taksali S/o. Chand Mal is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided he shall deposit Rs. 5,000/- before the District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur City, Jaipur within 15 days from today. The Trial Court, i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City, Jaipur is directed to disburse amount of Rs. 47,500/-(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) already lying deposited with it to Respondent No. 2-Smt. Amarjeet Kaur. 5. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application for Suspension of Sentence No. 269/2008 also stands disposed of. *******