CRLR/464/2022 of MUKESH KUMAR (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDAT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

24[TH ]AUGUST, 2022

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.464 of 2022

Between:

Mukesh Kumar.

..…Revisionist

and

State of Uttarakhand and Another. ..…Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. Amit Kapri.

Counsel for the State

: Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt. No.2

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The respondent no.2, namely, Suresh Chandra

Upreti had filed Complaint Case (No.988 of 2014 “Suresh Chandra Upreti vs. Mukesh Kumar” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” 1881) against the present revisionist-accused. The accused was convicted vide judgment dated 29.07.2019. The accused had preferred the Criminal Appeal (No.254 of 2019 “Mukesh Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another”).

The said Criminal Appeal has been dismissed

vide judgment dated 11.03.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Hence, this proposed criminal revision along with an application to condone the delay.

3.Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Mrs. Shivangi Gangwar, the learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-complainant on the delay condonation application.

4. The delay condonation application (IA No.1 of 2022) is not opposed by the respondents. The delay of 80 days in filing the proposed revision is condoned.

5.Admit.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist-accused submitted that the revisionist-accused Mukesh Kumar is in sub-Jail, Haldwani, District Nainital in the present matter.

7.The respondent no.2-complainant Suresh Chandra Upreti is present in-person and he is identified by Mr. Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate.

8.The respondent no.2-complainant submitted that he has filed compounding application along with his affidavit with his free will and without any pressure to

compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act, 1881.

9.The learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that Rs.10,500/- has been deposited with the State Legal Services Authority in compliance of the judgment, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663”.

10. As per the report of the Registry, Rs.10,500/- has been deposited. The respondent no.2-complainant has stated that he has compounded the offence with his free will and without any pressure. Therefore, the respondent no.2-complainant is allowed to compound the said offence, punishable under Section 138 of the said Act, 1881.

As per the report of the Registry, Rs.10,500/-

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties, the compounding application is accepted. The conviction and sentenced dated 29.07.2019, passed by the learned trial court in Complaint Case No.988 of 2014, and, the judgment dated 11.03.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in the said Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2019 are set-aside. The revisionist-accused is acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act, 1881.

12. The present Revision (No.464 of 2022) is disposed of accordingly.

Let copy of this order be sent to the

Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Haldwani, District Nainital for necessary action.

___________________

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Dt: 24.08.2022 Neha