Allahabad High Court
Meenu Rai vs State Of U.P And Another on 13 November, 2024
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178561
Court No. - 85
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9613 of 2024
Petitioner :- Meenu Rai
Respondent :- State Of U.P And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay,Shailendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Sri Ved Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act was registered as complaint case 1897 of 2018 (Satya Prakash Rai Vs. Smt. Meenu Rai) and the same was decided vide order dated 25.03.2021 through which petitioner has been convicted with 8 months of simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 8 lacs.
3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 25.03.2021 petitioner preferred appeal no. 60 of 2021 before the learned court of Sessions Judge. During pendency of appeal an outside of the court settlement arrived between the parties and the same has been reduced in writing on dated 14.09.2022 and in pursuance to the settlement agreement between the parties all the transactions have already been made through which respondent no. 2 was highly satisfied. The above fact have been apprised by the appellate court during pendency of criminal appeal no. 60 of 2021 but at the time of final adjudication of appeal although fact has been mentioned while passing the order dated 03.05.2024 has been given credence but the determination made by learned appellate court in shape of dismissing the appeal by way of affirming the order dated 25.03.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Varanasi has been put under challenged through the instant petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the respondent no. 2 is not having any grievances out of complaint preferred under section 138 N.I. Act and same has been apprised that all the transactions have already been formalized in terms of settlement made between the parties and reduced in writing on dated 14.09.2022 but so far as regarding compounding offences are concerned no heat has ever been paid by learned appellate court.
5. For substantiating the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner took reliance over the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Sombhai Patel Vs. Dineshbhai Ahalanand Rathi passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 13 of 2004 decided on 28.01.2004 wherein it has been held that if declaration have been placed before the Court and the presence of original complainant and the same is satisfied in shape of accepting the settlement arrived outside of the court and put himself withdrawn from transaction because he has compounded the offences outside of the court, as per certain legal position the effect of compounding offence is fact of acquittal. The present controversy is squarely covered with the dictum pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court has relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, since it is fairly submitted by leaned counsel for the respondent no. 2 Sri Ved Prakash Singh, that he is fully satisfied with the terms and conditions entered by both the parties and execution of same in shape of receiving certain amount and he does not want to press prosecution, but once the petitioner is convicted and the same order has been upheld by learned appellate court exercising of power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court hereby allowed the petition in shape of quashing the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 3, Varanasi and order dated 25.03.2021 passed learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 Varanasi and the matter is hereby compounded in terms of settlement arrived between the parties which have been fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
6. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 13.11.2024
Vikram
