Anup Haldar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

Instant revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.3451 of 2018, Shashi Mohan Arora vs. Anup Haldar, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment with a fine of `2,72,000/-. Challenge is also made to the order dated 06.06.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.109 of 2022, Anup Haldar vs. State of Uttarakhand (“the appeal”), by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. By it, the appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2022, passed in the case, has been dismissed in non-prosecution.

Compounding Application (IA) No.01 of 2024 has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the respondent no.2 would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. The court had directed the revisionist to deposit 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs with the State Legal Services Authority in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babala H, (2010)5 SCC 663.

Today, office has reported that the amount has already been deposited. The revisionist and the complainant, both joined the proceedings through video conferencing, as identified by their learned counsel. They have accepted that they have amicably settled the dispute. The revisionist is in Sub-Jail Haldwani, District Nainital. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 (“the complainant”) have verified the compromise.

On being asked, the respondent no.2 would submit that he has settled the dispute amicably and does not want to proceed with the case.

Having considered the nature of the offence and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the criminal revision may be decided on the basis of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

The instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order passed in the case as well as in the appeal, is hereby quashed. The revisionist is acquitted of the accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He is in custody. Let he be set free forthwith if not warranted in any other case.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Superintend of Jail and the court concerned today itself for compliance.

Compounding Application (IA) No.1 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.