Kamal Kishor Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Other

N.S. Dhanik, J

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division, Rishiesh District Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 394 of 2015, “Avdhesh Malhotra v. Kamal Kishor Sharma”, whereby the learned appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial court. The learned trial court, vide its judgment dated 07.10.2021, convicted the revisionist – accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revisionist – accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months with a fine of Rs.80,000/- with default clause.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This criminal revision is admitted.

Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma, the revisionist-accused and Shri Avdhesh Malhotra, the respondent no.2-complainant were present before the Court 11.03.2022. They were identified by their learned counsel respectively.

The learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that, in view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H (2010) 5 SSC 663, the revisionist–accused has deposited 15% (Rs.12,000/-) of the cheque amount (Rs.80,000/-) with the Registry of this High Court.

The revisionist–accused and the respondent no.2– complainant submitted that they have settled their disputes amicably and now, there is no dispute between them. The respondent no.2–the complainant wants to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent no.2 further submitted that he does not want to prosecute the revisionist in the instant matter. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 submitted that they have filed Compounding Application (No. 3 of 2021) along with their affidavits with their free will and without any pressure.

In view of the guidelines, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal, and taking into account the fact that the revisionist– accused and the respondent no.2–complainant have settled their dispute amicably and 15% of the cheque amount has been deposited, the revisionist and the respondent no.2 are permitted to file the compounding application.

The learned counsel for the State has no objection on the submissions of the revisionist and the respondent no.2.

Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The judgment dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division, Rishikesh, in Criminal Case No. 394 of 2015, “Chandreshwar Shaini v. Kamal Kishor Sharma”, as well as the judgment dated 07.10.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist Rishikesh, Dehradun in Case No. 201 of 2019 is set aside. The compounding of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 entails acquittal of the revisionist– accused. Therefore, the revisionist–accused is acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.