C482/1477/2021 of ALAUDDIN Vs STATE OFUTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1477 of 2021

Alauddin

…........ Applicant

State of Uttarakhand and another

…..... Respondents

Present : Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA with Ms. Sonika Khulbe, Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside the following judgments and orders, on the basis of amicable settlement:-

(i)Judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed in Complaint No. 431 of 2015, Tasabbur Ali v. Alauddin, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District, Haridwar (“the case”), whereby the petitioner has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for period of six months and fine of Rs. 2,65,000/-.

(ii)Judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2017, Alauddin v. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of 1[st] Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, whereby the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the appeal”) convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act has been upheld. 06.09.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2017, Alauddin v. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of 1[st] Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, whereby the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the appeal”) convicting and sentencing the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act has been upheld.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. joint compounding application has been filed by the petitioner and the complainant (“the respondent no. 2”) supported by the affidavits.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit

that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The amount involved in the instant case is Rs. 2,50,000/- and the petitioner is ready to deposit 15% of the amount in view of the judgment in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663.

5. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 are personally present before the Court, duly identified by their respective counsel. They have verified the contents of the compounding application and stated that they have now settled the dispute amicably.

6. The petitioner would submit that he is ready to pay 15% of the cheque amount today itself. He has brought the money with him.

7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that it is case which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed dated 26.10.2017 passed in the case and the judgment and order dated 06.09.2021 passed in the appeal are hereby set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 37,500/- with the Registry of this Court within week. Consequently, the petitioner stands acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

9. Compounding application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

24.12.2021