High CourtsSingle Bench

Nawab Hasan vs State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 10 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 UK CK 0061

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Maithani, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138
RESULT
Allowed/ Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 150 Of 2024, Compounding Application IA No. 3 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 370 words

Ravindra Maithani, J

1.

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 Rana Vs. Nawab Hasan, by the court of Judicial Magistrate First, Dehradun, District Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced for 1 Year Simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,15,000/-. In default of payment of fine, it is stipulated that the revisionist shall further undergo three months’ simple imprisonment. Provisions have also been made for compensation. And;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 07.02.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No.260 of 2022, Nawab Hasan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another, by the court of 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. By it, the judgment and order dated 19.10.2022, passed in the case, has been upheld.

2.

A joint compounding application (IA No. 3 of 2024) has been filed by the revisionist as well as the complainant along with their affidavits.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that parties have settled the dispute amicably; the revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount, as required to be deposited 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. It is confirmed by the Registry also.

5.

The revisionist is in District Jail, Dehradun. He has joined the proceedings through video conferencing. He and the complainant Shamun Rana, who has been identified by his learned counsel, have verified the compromise.

6.

Since the offence has been compounded, this Court is of the view that while setting aside the impugned judgments and orders, the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

7.

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.

8.

The revisionist is in jail. Let he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

9.

Compounding Application No. 3 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.