Maqbool Ansari vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

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

(i) Judgment and order dated 28.10.2021, passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.3318 of 2017, Sumit Dua vs. Maqbool Ansari, passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Fifth Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 55,000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment and;

(ii) The judgment and order dated 18.11.2023, passed in Criminal Appeal No.250 of 2021, Maqbool Ansari vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, passed by the court of Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udahm Singh Nagar (for short, “the appeal”), by which, the appeal has been dismissed and the order dated 28.10.2021, passed in the case has been confirmed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. The revisionist and the complaint, who is the respondent no.2 have filed a joint compounding application supported by the affidavits.

On a request having been made, the In-charge Sub Jail Haldwani, District Nainital facilitated the revisionist to join the proceedings through video conferencing.

The office has reported that the revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010)5 SCC 663.

The revisionist is in Sub Jail Haldwani, District Nainital. The revisionist joined the proceedings through video conferencing from Sub Jail Haldwani, District Nainital. The complainant (respondent no.2), as identified by his learned counsel is present before the Court. The parties have submitted that they have settled the dispute amicably.

The Court particularly asked the complainant (respondent no.2), he would submit that the matter has been settled and he has received the entire amount.

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

Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.10.2021, passed in the case and the judgment and order dated 18.11.2023, passed in the appeal, are hereby quashed. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. The revisionist is in Sub Jail Haldwani, District Nainital. He may be released forthwith, if not warranted in any other case.

Compounding Application (IA) No.2 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the court concerned and concerned jail today itself through such mode that the revisionist may not be unnecessarily detained in this case any further.