Anil Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3578 UK

   HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


             Criminal Revision No. 453 of 2022

Anil Bisht                                                    ..........Revisionist

                                        Vs.

State of Uttarakhand                                      ........ Respondent



Present :    Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the revisionist.
             Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.



                                  JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

following:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 30.03.2022, passed

in Criminal Case No.1052 of 2019, Aman Khan

vs. Anil Bisht, by the court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Almora (for short, "the case"). By

which the revisionist has been convicted under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to one

year rigorous imprisonment along with the

compensation to the tune of `10,50,000/- and;

(ii) The order dated 18.06.2022, passed in

Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2022, Anil Bisht vs.

Aman Khan, by the court of Sessions Judge,

Almora (for short, "the appeal"), by which, the

appeal has been dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the revisionist and the complaint, who is the

respondent no.2 have amicably settled the dispute. In

fact, such statement was given to the Court on

09.11.2022, when the Court had directed the revisionist

to deposit 15% of the amount of compensation as per

direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010)5 SCC

66.

4. Today, a statement is given that the amount

has already been deposited now.

5. A Joint Compounding Application (IA) No.1 of

2022 has been filed along with affidavits of the revisionist

and the respondent no.2. Anil Bisht, the revisionist, who

is identified by Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the

revisionist and Aman Khan, the respondent no.2 ("the

complainant"), who is identified by Mr. Rohit Kumar

Gaur, Advocate for the respondent no.2 have stated that

they have settled the dispute amicably.

6. Having considered the nature of the offence

and the other attending factors, this Court is of the view

that the criminal revision may be decided in terms of the

compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the petition

deserves to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is

allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.03.2022

passed in the case and the order dated 18.06.2022,

passed in the appeal, are hereby quashed. The revisionist

is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

9. Compounding Application (IA) No.1 of 2022

stands disposed of accordingly.

10. Let a copy of this order along with the record be

sent to the court concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 11.11.2022 Sanjay