Dalip Masih vs State of Punjab and Another

Inderjit Singh, J.—Petitioner Dalip Masih has filed this revision petition against the State of Punjab and Sh. Bikramjit Singh respondents u/s 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgments dated 21.08.2012 and 18.02.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur respectively, whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Instrument Act. It is stated in the petition that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are contrary to well-settled law as also the facts and evidence on the file and deserve to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be acquitted u/s 138 of Negotiable

On 20.03.2014, an application i.e. C.R.M. No. 9234 of 2014 was filed for placing on record the compromise deed dated 12.03.2014 (Annexure P-2) arrived at between the parties with further prayer for disposal of the case in terms of the aforesaid compromise executed between the parties and for acquittal of the petitioner by way of compounding of the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide C.R.M. No. 11876 of 2014.

Notice was given to the respondents and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2, appeared.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 states that respondent No. 2 has already effected a compromise with the petitioner and has received the amount as full and final settlement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed on record the receipt regarding deposit of Rs. 75,000/- with the Legal Service Committee of this Court, as per the guidelines of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., .

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel.

In view of the statements of the parties and the compromise Annexure P-2, I find that parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute. In view of the lawful composition of the offence between the parties, I accept the prayer for compounding of the offence and the petitioner is acquitted of the charges under which he has been convicted. The judgments dated 21.08.2012 and 18.02.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur respectively, are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed.