High CourtsSingle Bench

Amit Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 14 November 2025 · Citation: (2025) 11 UK CK 0065

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashish Naithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 450 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 344 words

Ashish Naithani, J

1.

The Revisionist-Amit Kumar, was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of ₹1,70,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Against the said judgment dated 08.01.2024, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2022, “Amit Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another” was preferred. The said Appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh District Dehradun.

2.

The Revisionist- Amit Kumar, and Respondent No. 2-Lallan Prasad, are present in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels.

3.

Both the Revisionist and Respondent No. 2 submitted that there were private disputes between them, which have now been amicably resolved. After such resolution, they have filed a Compounding Application (IA No. 01 of 2025) along with their affidavits, stating that the same has been executed voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion.

4.

The Revisionist submits that he has paid the entire amount of ₹1,70,000/- to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 also confirms that he has received the said amount in full and final settlement, and that nothing remains outstanding between them.

5.

Learned counsel for the State submits that since the dispute between the parties was purely private in nature and has been amicably settled, the State has no objection if the present matter is decided on the basis of the said compromise.

6.

Both parties have jointly requested that the present matter be decided in terms of the compromise.

7.

In view of the above, the Compounding Application (IA No. 01 of 2025) is allowed. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision also deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Since the offence has been compounded, the Revisionist is entitled to acquittal.

8.

Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court and the judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court are hereby set aside. The Revisionist is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.