ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The present bail cancellation application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by complainant-Smt. Nishu Gupta, with the following prayers : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that bail granted by this Hon’ble Court by its order dated 01.10.2021 and subsequent clarification order dated 27.10.2021 in criminal misc. bail application no.13927/2021 may kindly be cancelled and they may kindly be ordered to be sent behind the bars. Any other order or direction which deem fit, just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant-petitioner.” 2. Respondent no.1- Jitendra Ahuja & respondent no.2- Rinkal Ahuja have been arrested in connection with FIR No.355/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B IPC. 2.1. Thereafter, they have preferred a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2021, with the further clarification/rectification therein vide order dated 27.10.2021; the relevant portions of the said orders are reproduced as hereunder : Order dated 01.10.2021: “Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant jointly submit that the parties have entered into a compromise and three cheques have been handed over. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Jitendra Ahuja S/o Rajkumar Ahuja & (2) Rinkal Ahuja S/o Rajkumar Ahuja shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 355/2021 of Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur.......... In case, the cheques are not encashed, the complainant shall be free to move bail cancellation application.” Clarification/Rectification Order dated 27.10.2021: “Inadvertently, in the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13927/2021 at page-2 the words “three cheques” have been mentioned, it be read as “39 cheques”. 3. In case, the cheques are not encashed, the complainant shall be free to move bail cancellation application.” Clarification/Rectification Order dated 27.10.2021: “Inadvertently, in the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13927/2021 at page-2 the words “three cheques” have been mentioned, it be read as “39 cheques”. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submitted that the bail was granted by this Court on basis of the compromise dated 30.09.2021, and as per the same, the accused-respondents handed over 39 cheques to the complainant, but out of said cheques, total 5 cheques were dishonoured. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-respondents, as per their own conduct, have shown that they are not ready and willing to follow and adhere to the terms of the compromise as well as the condition for grant of the bail by this Court. It was also submitted that the accused-respondents repeated the same offence, while misusing the liberty of bail granted to them by this Court, and therefore, the bail granted to them deserves to be cancelled, while sending them behind the bars. 3.2. It was further submitted that one of the accused-Rajesh Ahuja, in the same FIR in question, got anticipatory bail on the basis of the same ground i.e. compromise, as above-mentioned. In the said case, the complainant filed a bail cancellation application and the same was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Nishu Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 51/2023, decided on 24.07.2023) 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satnarayan Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Nowal & Ors., (S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6537-6539/2021, decided on 16.12.2022) 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant-petitioner, while submitting that the transaction in question was commercial in nature and the accused-respondents got interim protection in the same FIR in the present case, vide order dated 18.04.2023 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1614 of 2023) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 4.1. It was further submitted that on the same facts, the complainant and her husband, for recovery of the amount, have lodged four FIRs against the respondent no. Petition No. 1614 of 2023) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. 4.1. It was further submitted that on the same facts, the complainant and her husband, for recovery of the amount, have lodged four FIRs against the respondent no. 2 and the entire family, before the same police station. It was also submitted that the complainant and her husband sent WhatsApp messages, as threat to the family of the accused-respondents. 4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court : (a) Ramesh Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 7 SCC 461 ; (b) Bimla Tiwari Vs State of Bihar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 51; (c) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 ; (d) Mahesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. (2006) 6 SCC 196 ; (e) Munish Bhasin Vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 4 SCC 45 ; (f) Dilip Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 ; (g) Sandeep Jain Vs National Capital Territory of Delhi (2000) 2 SCC 66 ; (h) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 ; (i) Dalip Kaur Vs Jagnar Singh (2009) 14 SCC 696 ; (j) Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs State of W.B. (2022) 7 SCC 124 ; (k) Vir Prakash Sharma Vs Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 373 . (l) Manoj Kumar Sood & Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand (S.L.P. (Crl.). 1274/2021, decided on 19.03.2021). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 6. This Court finds that against the accused-respondents the aforementioned FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B IPC, whereafter, they filed bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2021, with further clarification/rectification therein vide order dated 27.10.2021. 7. This Court further finds that as reflected in the order dated 01.10.2021, a joint submission was made by the parties to the effect that the parties have entered into a compromise, whereafter the Court granted the bail to the accused-respondents. 8. 7. This Court further finds that as reflected in the order dated 01.10.2021, a joint submission was made by the parties to the effect that the parties have entered into a compromise, whereafter the Court granted the bail to the accused-respondents. 8. This Court also finds that bail granted to one of the accused-Rajesh Ahuja in the same FIR No. 355/2021, has been cancelled on the ground of violation of compromise by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench vide order dated 24.07.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 51/2023; relevant portion of the said order is reproduced as hereunder : “I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the accused. It is an admitted position that vide order dated 13.12.2021 this Court allowed the anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent No.2 on the ground of compromise arrived between the parties. It is also admitted position that the accused had given the cheques for payment to the complainant as per compromise deed. Condition No.6 of the compromise reveals that it was specifically mentioned that in case of dishonour of cheques continuously for 3 times, the complainant shall be at liberty to seek bail cancellation. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused admitted the fact that cheques given by the accused in view of the compromise, were dishonoured. So, in my considered opinion, the accused had breached the condition of the compromise, whereas he had procured the bail on the basis of the compromise. So, bail cancellation application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is allowed. The anticipatory bail granted to the accused vide order dated 13.12.2021 is hereby, cancelled.” 9. This Court further finds that the order dated 01.10.2021 clearly reflects that the same was passed without going into the merits of the case, instead, the indulgence of bail was granted to the accused-respondents, only in light of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The accused-respondents themselves produced the compromise and were ready and willing to discharge their liability. 10. Thus, looking into the violation of the compromise arrived between the complainant and accused-respondents and the violation on the part of the accused-respondents of the condition of bail to the effect of encashment of the cheques, the instant bail cancellation application deserves to be allowed. 11. 10. Thus, looking into the violation of the compromise arrived between the complainant and accused-respondents and the violation on the part of the accused-respondents of the condition of bail to the effect of encashment of the cheques, the instant bail cancellation application deserves to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the present bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is allowed and the bail granted to the respondent no.1- Jitendra Ahuja S/o Rajkumar Ahuja and respondent no.2- Rinkal Ahuja S/o Rajkumar Ahuja vide order dated 01.10.2021 is hereby cancelled, with effect from 30.07.2024. 11.1. Thus, the present order shall come into effect only after 30.07.2024. Furthermore, since the present order as well as the bail order dated 01.10.2021, have been passed without going into the merits of the case, as indicated hereinabove, the accused-respondents shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application to be argued on merits.