Narendra Kumar Jain -II, J. - (1.) INSTANT Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the accused -petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 22.1.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision No. 69/2013, whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners and affirmed the order dated 28.6.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 81/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner -accused for depositing the entire cheque amount along with interest and to drop the proceedings was rejected. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.9.2010, a complaint was filed by the respondent No. 1 in Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). During pendency of the proceedings, on 16.11.2011, accused -petitioners moved an application stating therein that the petitioners are ready to deposit the entire cheque amount along with interest and the matter be decided accordingly. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.6.2012. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Revisional Court and that too was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 22.1.2013. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by both the Courts below the petitioners have filed this criminal misc. petition.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused -petitioners submitted that the orders passed by both the Court below are patently illegal and erroneous and deserve to be set aside. Learned Courts below have passed the orders without considering the true facts and circumstances of the case and also the intention of petitioners and the orders deserve to be set aside. The petitioner had given a cheque bearing No. 027642 for an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/ - (Rupees one lakh and twenty thousand) as a security and provisions of Section 138 of the Act were not applicable and no liability can be posted upon the petitioners. The petitioners had submitted an application before the Trial Court for depositing the cheque amount along with the interest with the intention to settle the dispute between the parties, but both the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioners should also settle the dispute regarding the cheque issued by the petitioners' son. So the learned Trial Court has arbitrarily dismissed the application dated 16.11.2011 filed by the petitioners as well as learned Revisional Court has also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the accused -petitioners further submitted that during pendency of the trial, the accused as per the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., : III (2010) BC 110 (SC) : II (2010) CCR 286 (SC) : III (2010) SLT 533 : 169 (2010) DLT 1 (SC) : 2010 (I) (Cri.) WLC (SC) 745, submitted an application before the trial Court and also offered to deposit the cheque amount for the purpose of compounding of the offence, but the learned Trial Court has illegally rejected the said application and the revision petition filed against said rejection order has also been dismissed by the Revisional Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that orders passed by both the Courts below are absolutely illegal and they have been passed in total disregard of the directions and guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra). Thus, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders passed by the learned Courts below be set aside and learned Trial Court be directed to compound the offence and drop the proceedings.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 1 vehemently opposed the prayer of learned Counsel for the accused -petitioners and submitted that without the consent of respondent No. 1 -complainant, the offence cannot be compounded and learned both the Courts below have rightly passed the impugned orders. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by both the Courts below and this misc. petition filed by the accused -petitioners deserves to be dismissed.;