Uttarakhand High Court
Babu Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 24 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.228 of 2024
Babu Ali ..........Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Mehboob Ali, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Virendra Singh Rawat, A.G.A. for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Kaushal Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 24.12.2022, passed
in Complaint Case No.2540 of 2017, Liyakat vs.
Babu Ali, by the court of Judicial Magistrate,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for
short, "the case"). By it the revisionist has been
convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act") and
sentenced to six months rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of `3,50,000/-. In
default of payment of fine, to further undergo
one month additional simple imprisonment
and;
(ii) The order dated 21.03.2023, passed in
Criminal Appeal No.10 of 2023, Babu Ali vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court
of First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur,
District Udahm Singh Nagar (for short, "the
appeal"), by which, the appeal has been
dismissed and the order dated 24.12.2022,
passed in the case has been confirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would
submit that the son of the revisionist and the complaint,
who is the respondent no.2 have filed a joint
compounding application supported by the affidavits.
4. Yesterday, when this submission was made the
Court was required the revisionist to deposit 15% of the
cheque amount, as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H., (2010)5 SCC 663.
5. Today, office has reported that the amount has
already been deposited. The revisionist is in Sub Jail
Haldwani, District Nainital. The revisionist joined the
proceedings through video conferencing from Sub Jail
Haldwani, District Nainital. The complainant (respondent
no.2), as identified by his learned counsel is before the
Court. The parties have submitted that they have settled
the dispute amicably.
6. The Court particularly asked the complainant
(respondent no.2), he would submit that the matter has
been settled and he has received the entire amount.
7. 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 revision
deserves to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is
allowed. The judgment and order dated 24.12.2022,
passed in the case and the order dated 21.03.2023,
passed in the appeal, are hereby quashed. The revisionist
is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.
The revisionist is in Sub Jail Haldwani, District Nainital.
He may be released forthwith, if not warranted in any
other case.
9. Compounding Application (IA) No.3 of 2024
stands disposed of accordingly.
10. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the
court concerned and concerned jail through such mode
that the revisionist may not be unnecessarily detained in
this case any further.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
24.04.2024
Sanjay
