M/s. Padmawati Capital Services Pvt. Ltd v. State of Rajasthan Anr. and the order dated

Judgment

1. Brijendra Mathur Son Of Shri Prakash Narain Mathur Partner Prakash Agencies, R/o House No. 2/237, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Office At Prakash Agencies, F-15, Morija Tower, Indira Bazar, Jaipur, Presently Residing At Plot No.22, Adarsh Krishna Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur. ----Accused-Respondent

2. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. D.P. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Dy.GA with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.GA Mr. Shashi Kant Saini, Adv. for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order DATE OF RESERVED :: DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT ::

05.08.2025

08.2025

1. This petition has been filed making the following the prayer:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to accept and allow this petition and the judgment passed by learned Revisional Court dated

22.10.2008 in Revision Petition No.48/2008 M/s. Padmawati Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and the order dated 06.12.2007 in Complaint Case No.411/2007 (Old No. [2025:RJ-JP:33112] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-5/2012] 339/2003) M/s. Padmawati Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Brijendra Mathur may be suitably modified by awarding 18% interest quarterly on the due amount and the compensation for compelling the petitioner to attend the court proceedings on 68 times @ Rs.500/- per appearance and the accused-respondent No.1 may be punished for maximum punishment of 2 years and the revision petition filed by the petitioner be allowed as such as prayed. Any other order or relief, which deems fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased and passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Act') against the respondent No.1 for dishonouring of a cheque amounting to Rs.28,500/-. Upon filing of the aforesaid complaint, learned Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur City (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') commenced the trial in Complaint Case No.411/2007 (Old No. 339/2003).

3. During the trial, accused-respondent made the payment of Rs.28,500/- to the petitioner-complainant. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 06.12.2007 convicted the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and sentenced him for three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, the complainant filed a Revision Petition No.48/2008 seeking enhancement of the sentence and respondent No.1 filed a Criminal Appeal No.29/2008 against the finding of conviction and sentence against him. The [2025:RJ-JP:33112] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-5/2012] revision petition and the appeal were decided by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned 'Appellate Court') vide common order dated 22.10.2008.

4. Considering the fact that the accused repaid the cheque amount of Rs.28,500/- to the complainant and the accused was a patient of Kidney disease, therefore, in the interest of justice, learned Appellate Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence and partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused and quashed the finding of sentence against the accused-respondent and granted the benefit of probation to him. The fine imposed by the trial Court was deposited by the accused.

5. Aggrieved by the order of learned Appellate Court, the complainant preferred SLP No.1778/2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated

27.03.2009. Against the order of dismissal of SLP, the petitioner filed a Review Petition No.D13189/2009 and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2009. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal of review petition, complainant filed a Curative Petition No.17/2011, which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.08.2011.

6. After dismissal of SLP, review petition and curative petition, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-complainant with a prayer that the judgment passed by the Appellate Court be modified and 18% interest on the cheque amount and cost of proceedings @ 500/- per day for 68 times be [2025:RJ-JP:33112] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-5/2012] also awarded in favour of the petitioner and maximum sentence of 2 years be awarded against the accused-respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in sentencing the accused-respondent for only 3 months' simple imprisonment and not awarding sufficient compensation in favour of the petitioner-complainant and Appellate Court grossly erred while giving benefit of probation to the accused as no benefit of probation can be given to accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief claimed in the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts:- (a) M.C.D. Vs. State of Delhi & Anr. reported in AIR 2005 SC 2658, (b) Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and Ors. reported in AIR2001SC3095, (c) Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in AIR2010SC1907, (d) Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Deepak Gupta and Anr. reported in 98(2002)DLT181, (e) Bayer Corporation and Ors. Vs. Cipla, Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 162(2009)DLT371, (f) M.V. Nalinakshan Vs. M. Rameshan and Anr. reported in 2009CriLJ1703, (g) C.B. Joseph Vs. M.P. Chandran reported in (1990) 67 CompCas31 (Ker), [2025:RJ-JP:33112] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-5/2012] (h) Smt. Bhavani Vs. D.C. Doddarangaiah and Anr. reported in MANU/KA/0358/2002 and (i) Asstt. Collector of Customs (P), Kandla Vs. Wong Ah Boo reported in 1996(81)ELT453(Guj.).

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that in this matter cheque was given in the year 2002 amounting to Rs.28,500/-. The respondent No.1 suffered the agony of trial and revision for about 5 years and this petition for the last more than 13 years. Learned counsel further submits that the cheque amount was repaid to the complainant during trial in the Court of Magistrate itself and fine imposed against the respondent No.1 was also deposited during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel also submits that the accused is suffering from kidney disease, therefore, the Appellate Court has rightly given the benefit of probation in favour of the respondent No.1, which requires no interference. Learned counsel contends that there is no bar to give benefit of probation in the cases involving offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgments passed by this Court in cases of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.196/2013 decided on 19.02.2016 and Sunil Jain Vs. Sugna National Engineering (E) & Another passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.24/2012 decided on 29.04.2013.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:33112] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-5/2012]

11. It is evident from the perusal of the record that against the impugned judgments, the petitioner filed an SLP, as mentioned above, which was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.03.2009. The Review Petition preferred against the dismissal of SLP was also dismissed and Curative Petition was also dismissed.

12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while dismissing the Review Petition filed against the SLP has passed the following order:- "We have carefully examined the Review Petition and the record of the Special Leave Petition from which it arises. We find no merit in the prayer for review. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed."

13. While dismissing the Curative Petition, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:- "We have gone through the curative petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & Anr., reported in 2002 (4) S.C.C. 388. Hence, this curative petition is dismissed."

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the SLP has been dismissed in limine, without even issuing notice against the respondent, therefore, dismissal of SLP does not curtail the right of the petitioner to move petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

15. In this matter, not only the SLP, but the Review Petition as well as Curative Petition has also been dismissed. Otherwise also, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the Appellate/Revisional Court granting the benefit of probation in favour of the accused-respondent. [2025:RJ-JP:33112] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-5/2012]

16. In view of the forgoing discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, therefore, the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. Mohita /- (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J