Dushyant Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 19.10.2022, passed in Complaint No. 2809 of 2013, Shamun Rama Vs. Nawab Hasan, by the court of I Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun (“the case”), by which the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”), and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 3,10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 07.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2022, Nawab Hasan Vs. State and another, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, by which the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and the judgment and order passed in the case has been affirmed.

A joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2024) has been filed along with the affidavits.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that parties have settled the dispute amicably; the revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.,(2010) 5 SCC 663. Receipt no.33, dated 28.02.2024 of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority has been tendered. Let it be placed on record.

The revisionist and the respondent no.2 joined the proceedings through video conferencing, as identified by their respective counsel. They have verified the compromise.

The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2. He would submit that he has received the money and settled the dispute.

Since the offence has been compounded, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed; the impugned judgments and orders deserve to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgements and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.