Sunil Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

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

(i) Judgment and order dated 30.09.2021 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 48 of 2017, Sri Mor Singh v. Sri Sunil Pal, by the Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. There has been direction for payment of compensation out of the fine also; and

(ii) Judgment and order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 2021, Sunil Pal v Mor Singh and another, by the Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhal (“the appeal”), whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated 30.09.2021 passed in the case has been upheld.

A compounding application has also been filed by the parties along with the affidavits.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute; 15% of the cheque amount has already been deposited with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority in view of the judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663.

The revisionist is in jail. The Court requested the Incharge, District Jail, Pauri to facilitate so that the revisionist may join through video conferencing. The revisionist is present through video conferencing. The complainant Mor Singh/respondent no. 2 is also present before this Court, duly identified by his Advocate. Both the revisionist and the respondent no. 2 have verified the compromise.

The Court particularly asked the respondent no. 2. He would submit that he has received the money; he does not want to pursue the case.

Having considered all the attending factors, 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 criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

The criminal revision is allowed. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. The judgment and order passed in the case and the judgment and order passed in the appeal are hereby set aside.

The revisionist is in jail. Let he be set free forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

Compounding application (IA No. 3 of 2024) also stands disposed of accordingly.