Anshuman Garg vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 10378 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2772 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Anshuman Garg
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rahul Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Kant Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Hathras dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2022 (Anshuman Garg Vs. Rahul Gupta & Another) and the judgement and order dated 13.05.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 3282 of 2015 (Rahul Gupta Vs. Anshuman Garg) passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C. Hathras.

It was a case under Section 138 N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque of Rs. 7,00000/- (Rs. Seven Lakhs Only) provided by Anshuman Garg to the complainant Rahul Gupta which was returned by the Bank with the endorsement 'Funds insufficient'. The complaint was decided by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. Hathras and the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs Only).

The aforesaid order was challenged by the revisionist by filing Criminal Appeal bearing No. 26 of 2022 (Anshuman Garg Vs. Rahul Gupta and another) wherein the parties entered into compromise certified copy whereof has also been filed as Annexure No. 2 to affidavit filed in support of the present revision. Wherein it is admitted by both the parties that D.D. No. 941432 dated 01.06.20222 drawn on Bank of India Hathras No. 941432 has been provided to the complainant Rahul Gupta and accordingly no lis remains between the parties.

From the perusal of Appellate Court's order, it transpires that compromise deed was also presented and pressed before it but the same was not considered.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the Appellate Court by not considering the compromise deed violated the law and has not applied its jurisdiction in right prospective.

In B. S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana and Others 2003 (4) SCC 675, Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (1) SCC 303 and in so many other cases Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if lis is private in nature and relates to financial and economic matters then FIR or criminal proceeding may be quashed. Certainly it is a matter between both the parties and the judgment of the Courts below are not judgement in rem but judgement in personam and the parties have entered into a compromise, therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgement passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 13.05.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 3282 of 2015 (Rahul Gupta Vs. Anshuman Garg) passed by Civil Judge (S.D.)/F.T.C. Hathras and judgement and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Hathras in Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2022 (Anshuman Garg Vs. Rahul Gupta & Another) are hereby quashed.

Let the order be sent to the Court concerned for being kept on record.

Order Date :- 17.8.2022

S.Verma