CRLR/370/2022 of MUNEEL LAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Criminal Revision No. 370 of 2022

Muneel Lal

….....Revisionist

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another ….….Respondents

Present:-

Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the revisionist.

Mr. V.K. Jemini, Deputy Advocate General with

Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate for the private respondent.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

followings:-

(i)Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 130 of 2017, Smt. Sunita Devi v. Muneet Lal, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rudraprayag (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”).

(ii)Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2019, Muneet Lal v. State of Uttarakhand and another, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed in the case has been confirmed. 23.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2019, Muneet Lal v. State of Uttarakhand and another, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag (“the appeal”). By it, the judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. perused the record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and

3. In fact, according to the revisionist, he has compounded the offence with the complainant. joint compounding application along with affidavits has alo been filed.

4. The revisionist, who is identified by his counsel Mr. L.K. Tiwari and the respondent no. 2, who is identified by her counsel Mr. P.C. Petshali are present before the Court. They have verified the compromise.

5. The amount of cheque in question Rs. 75,000/-. 15% of it, as required as per the judgment

in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 66 has already been deposited.

6. Since the parties have amicably settled the dispute, based on it, the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act and the impugned judgments and orders deserve to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28.05.2019 passed in the case and the judgment and order dated 23.09.2019 passed in the appeal are hereby set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

8. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned.

Avneet/

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.07.2022