Sunil Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 717 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Sunil Pal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 April, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Criminal Revision No. 157 of 2024
                           With
           Compounding Application IA No.3 of 2024



Sunil Pal                                      ......Revisionist

                              Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and Others              ..... Respondents


Present:
            Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for the revisionist.
            Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State.
            Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate for the complainant.


Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to

the followings:-

                 (i)    Judgment       and         order        dated

                       30.09.2021     passed        in     Criminal

Complaint Case No. 48 of 2017, Sri

Mor Singh v. Sri Sunil Pal, by the

Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, Pauri

Garhwal ("the case"). By it, the

revisionist has been convicted

under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act")

and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six

months with a fine of

Rs. 1,00,000/-. There has been

direction for payment of

compensation out of the fine also;

and

(ii) Judgment and order dated

14.10.2022 passed in Criminal

Appeal No. 33 of 2021, Sunil Pal v

Mor Singh and another, by the

Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhal ("the

appeal"), whereby the appeal has

been dismissed and the judgment

and order dated 30.09.2021

passed in the case has been upheld.

2. A compounding application has also been

filed by the parties along with the affidavits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would

submit that the parties have amicably settled the

dispute; 15% of the cheque amount has already been

deposited with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services

Authority in view of the judgment in the case of

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

663.

5. The revisionist is in jail. The Court

requested the Incharge, District Jail, Pauri to facilitate

so that the revisionist may join through video

conferencing. The revisionist is present through video

conferencing. The complainant Mor Singh/respondent

no. 2 is also present before this Court, duly identified

by his Advocate. Both the revisionist and the

respondent no. 2 have verified the compromise.

6. The Court particularly asked the

respondent no. 2. He would submit that he has

received the money; he does not want to pursue the

case.

7. Having considered all the attending

factors, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which

may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement

between the parties. Accordingly, the criminal revision

deserves to be allowed.

8. The criminal revision is allowed. The

revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section

138 of the Act. The judgment and order passed in the

case and the judgment and order passed in the appeal

are hereby set aside.

9. The revisionist is in jail. Let he be set free

forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

10. Compounding application (IA No. 3 of

2024) also stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 16.04.2024 Avneet/