Uttarakhand High Court
"Suresh Chandra Upreti vs Mukesh Kumar" Under Section on 24 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
24TH 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 a 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").
2. 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 a 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.
11. 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.
13. Let a 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
