Suresh Kumar vs Vikram Panwar (2026:Rj-Jd:6753)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 178/2026 Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years, Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mithai Ke Dibbe Ki Dukan, Near Sahara Bank Office, Opposite Brahmkumari Ashram, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Balotra) ----Petitioner Versus Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj. ----Respondent WITH S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 179/2026 Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years, Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat, R/o Mithai Ke Box Ki Dukan, Near Sahara Bank Office, Opposite Brahmakumari Ashram, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj.. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Balotra) ----Petitioner Versus Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj.. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 180/2026 Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years, Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mithai Ke Dibbe Ki Dukan, Near Sahara Bank Office, Opposite Brahmakumariashram, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj. (Presently Lodged In District Jail Balotra) ----Petitioner Versus Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj.. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 181/2026 Suresh Kumar S/o Pukhraj Prajapat, Aged About 34 Years, Through His Father Pukhraj Prajapat S/o Jairuparam Prajapat, R/o Mithai Ke Box Ki Dukan, Near Sahara Bank Office, Opposite Brahmakumari Ashram, Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District (Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:23:10 AM) (Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 08:36:25 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6750] (2 of 3) [CRLR-178/2026] Balotra Raj.. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Balotra) ----Petitioner Versus Vikram Panwar S/o Manglaram, R/o Balotra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Balotra Raj.. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veer Bajrang Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshit Chhangani Mr. Hanuman Singh Mr. Bhuvnesh Chhangani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 05/02/2026 1. Four different cases were lodged between the same parties. The complainant initiated prosecutions which were registered as four criminal regular cases and trial of each of the four cases were held separately and decided by separate judgments. 2. The petitioner was tried for committing an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, "NI Act") and, after a full-fledged trial, was acquitted of the charges. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, in appeal, converted the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, into a judgment of conviction vide order dated 30.01.2026. Hence, these present revision petitions. 5. Subsequently, the parties amicably settled the dispute and entered into a compromise. A compromise deed to this effect has been produced before this Court. In terms of the compromise, the dispute stands permanently resolved. (Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:23:10 AM) (Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 08:36:25 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:6750] (3 of 3) [CRLR-178/2026] 6. Since the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is a bailable and compoundable offence, therefore, in view of the compromise, these petitions deserve to be allowed. However, as the machinery of law and justice has been engaged in the private dispute between the parties for nearly two decades, costs are required to be imposed in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2929. 7. Accordingly, these revision petitions are partly allowed. In view of compromise, the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. The order of acquittal dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is affirmed. The petitioner is in jail. He shall be set free immediately in all the four cases. 8. The parties are further directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the account of 'Aastha'. The receipt thereof shall be sent to the learned ACJM No. 2, Balotra, within a period of 30 days. In case of non-payment, the learned trial Court shall inform this Court accordingly. 9. In the event of non-compliance with the directions of this Court, the order 30.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge shall stand automatically rejuvenated. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 11. A copy of this order shall be placed separately in each file. (FARJAND ALI),J 159,160,161&162/AnilKC/- (Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 10:23:10 AM) (Downloaded on 10/02/2026 at 08:36:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)