Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1780 (RAJ)

Tek Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-11

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in appeal whereby the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Metropolitan Magistrate No. 8, Jodhpur Metropolitan convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentencing him to undergo six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, was upheld. 2. The petitioner did not surrender after the rejection of his appeal. An application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking exemption from surrender in pursuance of the appellate court's order. It is mentioned in the application that subsequent to the appeal filed by the petitioner being rejected, the parties have settled the dispute and have filed a compromise application before this Court. It is further submitted that the offence of bouncing of cheque is more in the nature of quasi civil proceedings and as such, in view of the subsequent development i.e. compromised arrived at between the parties, the petitioner be exempted from surrendering pursuant to the dismissal of his appeal. It is further submitted that the offence is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act even without permission of the Court. Thus, the learned counsel prays that the compromise application be accepted and the accused be acquitted of the charge. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the parties have settled the dispute and have compromised the matter, the prayer for exemption is accepted. The petitioner is permitted to pursue the revision without surrendering. The defect pointed out by the Office is overruled. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 5. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The offence is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act even without permission of the Court. The parties have voluntarily compounded the matter and the compromise application submitted in this regard has been verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur today. 6. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The offence is compoundable under Section 147 of the N.I. Act even without permission of the Court. The parties have voluntarily compounded the matter and the compromise application submitted in this regard has been verified by the Dy. Registrar (Judl.), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur today. 6. In this view of the matter, the revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the order dated 28.6.2014 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan and the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) cum Metropolitan Magistrate No. 8, Jodhpur Metropolitan are hereby quashed. The accused is acquitted. His bail bonds are discharged. 7. Since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 10% of the cheque amount deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner in light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babu Lal, reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 493. The cost shall be deposited with the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.