Uttarakhand High Court
Lakshman Singh Karki vs State Of Uttarakhand And Anothter on 30 April, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 156 of 2024
With
Compounding Application IA No.2 of 2024
Lakshman Singh Karki ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Anothter ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. V.S. Rawat, A.G.A. with Ms. Rangoli Purohit, Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. Neeraj Parihar, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
following:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 28.03.2022,
passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 05 of
2020, Bhagwat Singh Bhauriyal Vs.
Lakshman Singh Karki, by the court of
Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gangolihat,
Pithoragarh ("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 one year with a
fine of Rs. 5,08,500/-. In default of payment
of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 11.01.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2022,
Lakshman Singh Karki Vs. Bhagwat Singh
Bhauriyal, by the court of Sessions Judge,
Pithoragarh ("the appeal"). By it, the order
passed in the case was affirmed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit
that the revisionist and the wife of the complainant have
settled the dispute amicably; the complainant has died on
20.10.2023; Rekha Bhauriyal is his wife, who has filed
affidavit along with the compounding application.
4. In the memo of the revision, the revisionist has
arrayed the complainant as the respondent no.2, who,
according to the revisionist, has already died on
20.10.2023.
5. Let the revisionist substitute the name of the
respondent no.2 with the name of Rekha Bahuriyal as a
legal heir and file an amended memo of the revision during
the course of the day.
6. The revisionist is in District Jail, Almora. He has
joined the proceedings through video conferencing. Smt.
Rekha Bhauriya, wife of Late Bhagwat Singh Bhauriyal,
also joined the proceedings through video conferencing, as
identified by his counsel. Both have stated that they have
settled the dispute amicably.
7. The revisionist says that his children might have
paid the amount.
8. Smt. Rekha Bhauriyal, the wife of the
complainant would submit that she has received the money
and she does not want to proceed with the case.
9. Since the offence has been compounded, this
Court is of the view that while setting aside the impugned
judgments and orders, the revisionist is liable to be
acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.
10. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The
impugned judgements and orders are set aside. The
revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of
the Act.
11. The revisionist is in jail. Let he be released
forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
12. Compounding Application No. 2 of 2024
stands disposed of, accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani,J.)
30.04.2024
Ravi Bisht
