Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dinesh Puri vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:32764]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5859/2026
CNR: RJHC010691712026
URN: CRLMP / 10395U / 2026
Dinesh Puri S/o Narayan Puri, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Juni
Basti Mandore, Jodhpur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Seema, Through His Legal Heri Smt. Seema W/o
Surender S/o Late Shri Ramlal R/o Beechlawas Ramawas
Khurd Tehsil And District Jodhpur, At Present Juni Basti
Mandore, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Ms. Hena Aman Siddiqui, for
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
20/07/2026
1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by
the petitioner under section 528 BNSS against the judgment dated
30.06.2023 passed by the learned Special Magistrate (NI Act
Cases), No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Case No.385/2016
and judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by Learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal appeal
No.301/2023 by which the petitioner has been convicted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to
two years of simple imprisonment and also pay compensation
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32764] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-5859/2026]
payment of cheque amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and in default of
payment of the fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of
three months.
2. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment dated dated
10.10.2024, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4,
Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal appeal No.301/2023, whereby,
the appeal assailing the above-mentioned order was dismissed.
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
miscellaneous petition may be allowed. He submits that a
settlement deed was executed on 09.07.2026 by both the parties
in the presence of witnesses, fortifying the fact that the
respondent No.2 has received the entire outstanding amount and
has no objection if the revision petition is allowed on the basis of
the said compromise.
4. On specific query, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 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 miscellaneous petition is allowed.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the present petition,
however, he is not in a position to refute the factum of
compromise arrived at between the parties.
6. Considered the spirit of the provisions of Section 147 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides as under:-
“147. Offences to be compoundable.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every offence
punishable under this Act shall be compoundable”
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32764] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-5859/2026]
7. In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H
reported in 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:-
“With regard to the progression of litigation in
cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney
General has urged this Court to frame guidelines for
a graded scheme of imposing costs on parties who
unduly delay compounding of the offence. It was
submitted that the requirement of deposit of the
costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition,
since at present, free and easy compounding of
offences at any stage, however belated, gives an
incentive to the drawer of the cheque to delay
settling the cases for years. An application for
compounding made after several years not only
results in the system being burdened but the
complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In
view of this submission, we direct that the following
guidelines be followed:-
THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed
as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that
the Writ of Summons be suitably
modified making it clear to the accused
that he could make an application for
compounding of the offences at the first
or second hearing of the case and that
if such an application is made,
compounding may be allowed by the
court without imposing any costs on the
accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an
application for compounding as
aforesaid, then if an application for
compounding is made before the
Magistrate at a subsequent stage,
compounding can be allowed subject to
the condition that the accused will be
required to pay 10% of the cheque
amount to be deposited as a condition
for compounding with the Legal
Services Authority, or such authority as
the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for
compounding is made before the
Sessions Court or a High Court in
revision or appeal, such compounding
may be allowed on the condition that(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32764] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-5859/2026]the accused pays 15% of the cheque
amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for
compounding is made before the
Supreme Court, the figure would
increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
8. In the case of M/s. Meters and Instruments Private
Limited and Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta reported in 2018 (1)
SCC 560, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 18, was pleased to
observe as under:-
i) Offence under Section 138 of the Act is primarily
a civil wrong. 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 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.
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32764] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-5859/2026]
(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.”
9. 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:-
“18. Taking into consideration even the said
provision (Section 147) and the primary object
underlying Section 138, in our judgment, there is
no reason to refuse compromise between the
parties. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal on the
basis of the settlement arrived at between the
appellant and the respondent.
19. For the foregoing reasons the appeal deserves
to be allowed and is accordingly allowed by holding
that since the matter has been compromised
between the parties and the amount of
Rs.45,000/- has been paid by the appellant
towards full and final settlement to the
respondent-bank towards its dues, the appellant is
entitled to acquittal. The order of conviction and
sentence recorded by all courts is set aside and he
is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.”
10. 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:-
“38. Since a very large number of cheque bouncing
cases are still pending and interest rates have
fallen in the last few years, this Court is of the view(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32764] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-5859/2026]that it is time to ‘revisit and tweak the guidelines’.
Accordingly, the aforesaid guidelines of
compounding are modified as under:-
(a) If the accused pays the cheque
amount before recording of his
evidence (namely defence evidence),
then the Trial Court may allow
compounding of the offence without
imposing any cost or penalty on the
accused.
(b) If the accused makes the payment
of the cheque amount post the
recording of his evidence but prior to
the pronouncement of judgment by the
Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow
compounding of the offence on
payment of additional 5% of the
cheque amount with the Legal Services
Authority or such other Authority as
the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque
amount is made before the Sessions
Court or a High Court in Revision or
Appeal, such Court may compound the
offence on the condition that the
accused pays 7.5% of the cheque
amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is
tendered before this Court, the figure
would increase to 10% of the cheque
amount.”
11. Considering the statements made by both the learned
counsel and after perusal of settlement deed dated 09.07.2026 as
also, taking guidance from the judgments referred to supra, the
present miscellaneous petition is allowed in view of the
compromise entered between parties.
12. 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).
13. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32764] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-5859/2026]
Negotiable Instruments Act vide judgment dated 30.06.2023
passed by the learned Special Magistrate (NI Act Cases), No.5,
Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Case No.385/2016 and the
judgment dated 10.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge No.4, Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Criminal Appeal
No.301/2023 are hereby quashed and set aside on the basis of the
aforesaid compromise, subject to deposit of costs equivalent to
7.5% of the cheque amount by the petitioner. The said costs shall
be deposited by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur within a period of one month from the
reciept of the copy of this order. In case the costs are not
deposited before the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority,
Jodhpur within the stipulated period, the present criminal
miscellaneous petition shall stand revived and be listed before this
Court for passing appropriate orders.
14. The petitioner is accordingly acquitted from the offence
punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
15. All the pending applications are hereby disposed of
accordingly.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the Rajasthan State Legal
Services Authority, Jodhpur.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
172/Sanjay Tanwar/333
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 05:55:19 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:36:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
