Order 06/10/2025

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.4 (NI Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 4882/2014 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and imposed punishment of 1 year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3,40,000/-.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated 19.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.136/2022 "Laluram v. Madanlal Singhvi & Anr.", whereby, the appeal assailing the above- mentioned order was dismissed.

(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:21:44 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43804] (2 of 7) [CRLR-1425/2023]

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that both the parties have settled the matter and therefore, in view of the provision of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the present revision petition may be allowed. He submits that a settlement deed was executed on 06.10.2024 by both the parties in the presence of witnesses, fortifying the fact that the respondent has received the entire outstanding amount due and has no objection if the revision petition is allowed on the basis of the said compromise.

4. On specific query, the learned counsel Mr. Love Jain for complainant Madan Lal Singhvi S/o Shri Suraj Mal Singhvi stated that in view of the fact that the parties have settled the issue and the amount has been paid, he has no objection if the present revision petition is allowed.

5. Considered the spirit of the provisions of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides as under:-

6. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H reported at 2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 1328, the Hon'ble Apex Court had formulated the guidelines for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act wherein in para 21, it was pleased to observe as under:-

7. In the case of M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta reported at 2018 (1) SCC 560, the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 18, was pleased to observe as under:-

Burden of proof is on accused in view presumption under Section 139 but the standard of such proof is "preponderance of probabilities". The same has to be normally tried summarily as per provisions of summary trial under the Cr.P.C . but with such variation as may be appropriate to proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Act . Thus read, principle of Section 258 Cr.P.C. will (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:21:44 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43804] (4 of 7) [CRLR-1425/2023] apply and the Court can close the proceedings and discharge the accused on satisfaction that the cheque amount with assessed costs and interest is paid and if there is no reason to proceed with the punitive aspect.

(ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the Court.

(iii) Though compounding requires consent of both parties, even in absence of such consent, the Court, in the interests of justice, on being satisfied that the complainant has been duly compensated, can in its discretion close the proceedings and discharge the accused.

(iv)Procedure for trial of cases under Chapter XVII of the Act has normally to be summary. The discretion of the Magistrate under second proviso to Section 143 , to hold that it was undesirable to try the case summarily as sentence of more than one year may have to be passed, is to be exercised after considering the further fact that apart from the sentence of imprisonment, the Court has jurisdiction under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to award suitable compensation with default sentence under Section 64 IPC and with further powers of recovery under Section 431 Cr.P.C. With this approach, prison sentence of more than one year may not be required in all cases.

(v) Since evidence of the complaint can be given on affidavit, subject to the Court summoning the person giving affidavit and examining him and the bank's slip being prima facie evidence of the dishonor of cheque, it is unnecessary for the Magistrate to record any further preliminary evidence. Such affidavit evidence can be read as evidence at all stages of trial or other proceedings. The manner of examination of the person giving affidavit can be as per Section 264 Cr.P.C. The scheme is to follow summary procedure except where exercise of power under second proviso to Section 143 becomes necessary, where sentence of one year may have to be awarded and compensation under Section 357(3) is considered inadequate, having regard to the amount of the cheque, the financial capacity and the conduct of the accused or any other circumstances'.

(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:21:44 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43804] (5 of 7) [CRLR-1425/2023]

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Devanna Nayak vs. Ryot Seva Sahkari Bank Limited reported at AIR 2008 SC 716 was pleased to observe as under:-

9. Recently, the Apex Court considering the judgment of Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) in the case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. reported in 2025 INSC 1158 had issued the guidelines for compounding the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act wherein in para 38, it was pleased to observe as under:-

10. Considering the statements made by both the learned counsel and after perusal of settlement deed dated 06.10.2024 as also, taking guidance from the judgments referred to supra, the present revision petition is allowed in view of the compromise entered between parties.

11. However, since the compromise has been arrived at after rejection of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, a cost of 7.5% 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 Sanjabij Tari (supra).

12. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for offence under Section 138 NI Act vide judgment dated 29.11.2022, passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate No.4 (NI Cases), Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 4882/2014 "Madan Lal Singhvi v. Laluram Dagi" and judgment dated 19.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No.136/2022 "Laluram v. Madanlal Singhvi & Anr." are hereby quashed set aside on the basis of the aforesaid compromise subject to deposition of cost of 7.5% of the cheque amount by the petitioner. The cost shall be (Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:21:44 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:35 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:43804] (7 of 7) [CRLR-1425/2023] deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one month from today. In case, the cost is not deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur within the stipulated period, the revision petition may be listed before this Court for passing appropriate orders.

13. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. Suspension of Sentence application is already decided.

14. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.

15. Copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jodhpur.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J 606-mohit/-

(Uploaded on 06/10/2025 at 05:21:44 PM) (Downloaded on 06/10/2025 at 09:41:35 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)