Uttarakhand High Court
Kamal Kishor Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand And Other on 23 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2022
Kamal Kishor Sharma ...Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and other ...Respondents
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Mr. Vinay Bhatt, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pant,
learned counsel for the second respondent.
Dated: 23rd March, 2022
Hon'ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
This criminal revision has been filed against the
judgment dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division, Rishiesh District
Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 394 of 2015, "Avdhesh
Malhotra v. Kamal Kishor Sharma", whereby the learned
appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded
by the learned trial court. The learned trial court, vide its
judgment dated 07.10.2021, convicted the revisionist - accused
for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The revisionist - accused was sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eight months
with a fine of Rs.80,000/- with default clause.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This criminal revision is admitted.
4. Shri Kamal Kishore Sharma, the revisionist-accused
and Shri Avdhesh Malhotra, the respondent no.2-complainant
were present before the Court 11.03.2022. They were identified
by their learned counsel respectively.
5. The learned counsel for the revisionist and the
learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that, in view
of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H (2010) 5 SSC 663, the
revisionist-accused has deposited 15% (Rs.12,000/-) of the
cheque amount (Rs.80,000/-) with the Registry of this High
Court.
6. The revisionist-accused and the respondent no.2-
complainant submitted that they have settled their disputes
amicably and now, there is no dispute between them. The
respondent no.2-the complainant wants to compound the
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent no.2 further submitted
that he does not want to prosecute the revisionist in the instant
matter. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 submitted that
they have filed Compounding Application (No. 3 of 2021) along
with their affidavits with their free will and without any
pressure.
7. In view of the guidelines, as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed
Babalal, and taking into account the fact that the revisionist-
accused and the respondent no.2-complainant have settled
their dispute amicably and 15% of the cheque amount has been
deposited, the revisionist and the respondent no.2 are
permitted to file the compounding application.
8. The learned counsel for the State has no objection on
the submissions of the revisionist and the respondent no.2.
9. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed. The
judgment dated 17.07.2019, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate/Civil Judge Junior Division, Rishikesh, in Criminal
Case No. 394 of 2015, "Chandreshwar Shaini v. Kamal Kishor
Sharma", as well as the judgment dated 07.10.2021, passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ist Rishikesh, Dehradun
in Case No. 201 of 2019 is set aside. The compounding of
offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 entails acquittal of the revisionist-
accused. Therefore, the revisionist-accused is acquitted from
the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.)
23.03.2022
SB
