Smt. Shama Rao vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3007 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL

            CRIMINAL REVISION NO.620 of 2023

Smt. Shama Rao                                   .............Revisionist

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another              ...............Respondents

                                With

            CRIMINAL REVISION NO.241 of 2021

Rao Shahid Ahmad                                 .............Revisionist

                              Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another              ...............Respondents

Presence: Mr.P.C. Petshali, learned counsel for the revisionist.
           Mr. Yogesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent
           no.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Both these Criminal Revisions have been filed by

the revisionists-accused, who were convicted vide judgment

and order dated 25.04.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate/

First Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), whereby the

revisionists/accused were convicted for the offence

punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 for a period of one year simple imprisonment and a

fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, with default stipulation of two

months' additional imprisonment. The appeal there-against

being Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2017 met with the same fate

on 04.12.2020 resulting into the confirmation of judgment

and order passed by the trial court.

2. Both the revisions are on the behest of accused

persons.

3. Today, the matters are taken up in the National

Lok Adalat being held in the premises of the High Court of

Uttarakhand. In the first revision, revisionist/accused- Smt.

Shama Rao and complainant Keshav Verma are present in-

person and in the second revision, revisionist/accused-Rao

Shahid Ahmad and complainant-Keshav Verma are present

in-person.

4. Both the parties to the litigation i.e. revisionists-

Smt. Shama Rao, Rao Shahid Ahmad and complainant-

Keshav Verma are present being duly identified by their

respective Advocates.

5. Both the parties to the criminal revisions have

settled their lis in terms of the written compromise filed

separately in both the criminal revisions.

6. According to the terms of compromise, the parties

to the litigation agreed to settle the dispute amicably and a

sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- has already been paid by the

revisionist-accused to the complainant (respondent no.2-

Keshav Verma) and it has also been agreed that the amount

of Rs.5,50,000/- deposited before the trial court shall also

be released in favour of the complainant Keshav Verma. The

compromise is also signed by both the parties in both

revisions, duly identified by their respective Advocates.

7. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revisions i.e.

Nos.620 of 2023 and 241 of 2021 are allowed in terms of

the written compromise entered into between the parties.

The said compromise will form part of this order. As a result,

the judgment and order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the

trial court as also the judgment and order dated

04.12.2020, passed by the appellate court are set-aside.

Revisionists are acquitted of the charge under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 07.10.2023 PN