AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of present revision petition under Section 438 readwith Section 442 BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has challenged the Judgment and order dated 17.8.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer in Criminal Appeal No. 491/2025 (Sushil Kumar Gehlot Versus State & Anr.), whereby the appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner has been dismissed and the Judgment and order dated 4.10.2025 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act) No.1, Ajmer in Regular Criminal Case No. 1391/2021 (Anil Kumar Versus Sushil Kumar Gehlot) convicting the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentencing him to undergo 6 months' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,15,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment, has been affirmed.
At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's mother and the respondent-complainant have entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire amount has been received by the respondent-complainant. The original compromise alongwith the respondent's affidavit have been annexed with the petition. The petitioner is in judicial custody since long. He has, therefore, prayed that the original compromise may be taken on record and on the basis of compromise, the revision petition may also be allowed, the judgments passed by the courts below may be set aside and the petitioner be set at liberty.
Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has not disputed the factum of said compromise. He, on instructions, of the respondent-complainant has submitted that in furtherance of the compromise, entire amount has already been received by the respondent-complainant and he does not want any further proceeding in this matter. He has, thus, submitted that the respondent-complainant has no objection, if the original compromise is taken on record, revision petition is also allowed on the basis of compromise and the petitioner is set at liberty.
Today, the respondent-complainant is present in person before this Court. His signature has been obtained on the Court's order sheet and he has been identified by his counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has made oral prayer for grant of exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost. He has submitted that the petitioner is a poor person, who is facing financial crisis. On account of his poor economic condition, the petitioner has anyhow arranged the money and paid to the complainant in view of the compromise. He has also submitted that if any cost is imposed on the petitioner in relation to the compromise, it would cause extreme hardship to the petitioner. He has, thus, prayed to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record.
From perusal of record, it reveals that the petitioner's mother and the complainant have amicably settled their dispute and entered into compromise, in furtherance of which, entire money has been paid to the respondent-complainant and the respondent- complainant expressed his desire that this revision petition may be decided in the light of the compromise and the petitioner be set at liberty.
As per Section 147 of the N.I. Act, offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compoundable, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to dispose of the revision petition on the basis of compromise. Further, looking to the poor financial condition of the accused petitioner, this Court finds that it would be just and proper to grant exemption to the petitioner from depositing the cost.
Consequently, the original compromise annexed with the petition is taken on record, the present revision petition is allowed and the judgments and orders dated 17.8.2026 and 4.10.2025 passed by the courts below are quashed and set aside. The offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compounded and accused-petitioner is acquitted of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of compromise. The petitioner is also exempted from depositing the cost.
Since the petitioner is presently confined in jail, the jail authorities are directed to release the accused-petitioner from jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.
The petitioner is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with provisions of Section 481 of BNSS before the concerned trial court within four weeks from the date of his release, to the effect that in the event of filing of special leave petition against this judgment/order or on grant of leave, the petitioner, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months.
Office is directed to send release order along with a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance immediately. A copy of this order along with records be also sent to the trial court forthwith.
Since the revision petition has been allowed on the basis of compromise, no order is required to be passed on the suspension of sentence application and the same stands disposed of accordingly.