INDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge judgment dtd. 21/5/2017, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jodhpur Metro (for short, 'learned appellate Court'), whereby learned appellate Court has confirmed judgment dtd. 4/3/2017, rendered by Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.l, Jodhpur Metro (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The learned trial Court, by its verdict dtd. 4/3/2017, indicted accused-petitioner for offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'Act') and handed down sentence of one year's simple imprisonment. Besides imprisonment, the learned trial Court has also ordered that accused-petitioner should pay fine to the complainant to the tune to Rs.6,80,000.00 and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo two months' simple imprisonment-. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached learned appellate Court but that effort did not fructify to his advantage as the learned appellate Court dismissed his appeal. This sort of situation has necessitated filing of this revision petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now rival parties have sorted out their dispute and compromise has been arrived at between the parties and respondent No.2-complainant has received all the amount from the petitioner, therefore, no amount is now due between the parties. With this positive assertion, learned counsel has urged that both the impugned judgments be annulled and sentence handed down by learned trial Court and confirmed by learned appellate Court be set aside. The copy of the compromise is already placed on record. With these submissions, it is prayed that the matter may be decided in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babulal H. reported in 2010 (5) SCC 663.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant, while acknowledging the compromise arrived at between the parties, would urge that looking to the nature of offence and in the wake of settlement of dispute between rival parties, the conviction recorded by learned trial Court and upheld by the learned appellate Court merits annulment.