VED PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - An application, S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1167 of 2011, for submitting a compromise has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Mangilal, the complainant, is present before this Court; he has been identified by his counsel. Both the learned counsel are had ad idem that Mr. Ved Prakash, the petitioner and Mr. Mangi Lai, the complainant, have entered into compromise. According to Mangi Lai, the disputed amount has already by paid to him. Therefore, he does not wish to pursue this case against petitioner.

(3.) In the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (1) NIJ 321(SC) = AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1907 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had opined that the intention behind Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not so much as to send a person to prison, as to ensure that the amount in dispute is paid by the accused to the complainant. Moreover, in order the parties were to enter into a compromise, before the High Court, then the accused person is liable to pay 15% of the amount in dispute as the cost. The said cost should be paid to the Legal Service Authority.