Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1312 (RAJ)

Praveen Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-02

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2014
Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 25.2.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 67/2009 (824/2009), whereby he dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the judgment dated 10.9.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 576/2007 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo 1 year SI with fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months' SI. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- "On 27.1.2005, the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the accused petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and directed to issue process against the petitioner and summoned the accused petitioner. Thereafter the trial court readover the substance of charge to the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused petitioner were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court passed the judgment dated 10.9.2009 convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, as indicated above. Against the said judgment passed by the trial court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate court, but the appellate court vide judgment dated 25.2.2010 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court." 3. Hence, this Cr. Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the matter was sent for mediation and in Mediation Center on 19.5.2014, they have entered into the compromise. Hence, this Cr. Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the matter was sent for mediation and in Mediation Center on 19.5.2014, they have entered into the compromise. The order dated 19.5.2014 passed in Mediation Center is reproduced as under: ^^;kph Jh izoh.k dqekj 'kekZ ,oa mlds vf/koDrk Jh vkuUn 'kekZ mifLFkrA ifjoknh Jh ftrsUnz dqekj f}osnh ,oa muds vf/koDrk Jh iq"isUnz ik.Ms mifLFkrA i{kdkjksa ds e/; le>kSrk fookfnr pSd ds lEcU/k esa ,d yk[k rhl gtkj :i;s dh vnk;xh ds fy, gks x;k gSA le>kSrk i= i`Fkd ls fu"ikfnr fd;k x;kA le>kSrk i= o jlhn ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks mfpr vkns'k gsrq izsf"kr gSA e/;LFkrk dk;Zokgh lQy gqbZA** 5. Learned counsel has further contended that in view of above, this revision petition should be decided on the basis of compromise and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the petitioner should be quashed and set-aside. 6. Mr. Pushpendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 has also contended that complainant-respondent No. 2 also appeared before the Mediation Center on 19.5.2014. He has agreed and given consent to this Court that the matter should be decided on the basis of the compromise entered in the mediation center on 19.5.2014. 7. In view of above, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner passed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 10.9.2009 and affirmed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 25.2.2010, are quashed and set-aside in view of the compromise entered into between the parties in the mediation center on 19.5.2014. 8. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed, as mentioned above.