Allahabad High Court
Razzaq Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1308 of 2022
Revisionist :- Razzaq Ali
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Taufeeq Ahmad,Abhijeet Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anurudh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anurudh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant Criminal Revision has been filed with a prayer to allow the instant criminal revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Barabanki in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2018 (Rajjaq Ali vs. State of U.P. & another) to the extent to fine amount Rs. 1,27,500/- to the tune of 15% interest on cheque amount of Rs. 8,50,000/-.
Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that at the stage of appeal bearing No. 57 of 2018 under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., the parties entered into compromise and that too was submitted before the Appellate Court. He added that the order was passed considering the compromise deed on 29.09.2022 whereas penalty of Rs. 1,27,500/- has been imposed over the revisionist. He further submits that since the aforesaid order was passed on the premises that the compromise was entered into between the parties and that too has been discussed in the appellte order, but while passing the operative portion of the order, the penalty of Rs. 1,27,500/- has been imposed, though, it was not ever mentioned in the compromise deed that any penalty be realised by the opposite party No. 2 at any stage after the compromise is done. He next submits that the order passed by the appellate Court is erroneous and thus, is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also supported the version of the counsel appearing for the revisionist and submits that the revisionist as well as the opposite party No.2 entered into a compromise and thereafter, the matter was settled between the parties and there was no grievance of the opposite party No.2 with respect to realising any penalty over the amount so received by him.
The counsel for State has no objection to the contentions aforesaid.
Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the parties i.e., revisionist as well as opposite party No.2 entered into a compromise deed and that was before the appellate authority while passing the order impugned. Since, the aforesaid appeal was decided on the premise of compromise deed entered into between the parties and submitted before the appellate Court, then, there was no question to impose penalty over the revisionist.
The revisionist as well as opposite party No.2 are bound by the terms and conditions imposed in the compromise deed and further, the opposite party No.2 has no grievance or he has never desired to get release the penalty from the revisionist. Resultantly, the part of the order with respect to imposing penalty of Rs. 1,27,500 is hereby set aside. Rest of the order passed in revision is affirmed.
The instant revision is partly allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.
Order Date :- 16.2.2023
G.Singh
