Mulkiraj Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2024 Latest Caselaw 857 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Mulkiraj Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 3 May, 2024

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

               Criminal Revision No.226 of 2024
                            With
            Compounding Application IA No.2 of 2024

Mulkiraj Saini                                          ...Revisionist

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and another                      ...Respondents


Present:-
              Mr. Surendra Kumar Bahl, Advocate for the revisionist
              through video conferencing.
              Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, AGA for the State.
              Mr. Mohd. Umar, 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 26.11.2022, passed

in Complaint Case No. 224 of 2022, Vijay

Godwani (Hemlata Godwani deceased) Vs.

Mulkiraj Saini, by the court of Judicial

Magistrate/IV Additional Civil Judge,

Haridwar ("the case"). By it, the 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.1,70,000/-. In default of payment of fine to

undergo simple imprisonment for a further

period of two months and;

(ii) Judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed

in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2022, Mulkiraj

Saini Vs. State and another by learned Vth

Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District

Haridwar ("the appeal"). By it, the appeal filed

by the revisionist has been dismissed and the

order passed in the case of affirmed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

3. A joint compounding application (IA No. 2 of 2024)

has been filed along with the affidavits.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that

the parties have settled their disputes amicably. In fact, on

01.05.2024, learned counsel for the revisionist has sought two

days time to deposit the 15% cheque amount, as required by

virtue of the direction in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs.

Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663.

5. Now, the office has reported that the amount has

been deposited.

6. The revisionist as well as the respondent no.2 joined

the proceedings through video conferencing duly identified by

their respective counsel. . They have verified the compromise.

7. The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2.

He would submit that he has received the money and settled

the dispute.

8. Since the offence has been compounded, 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 revision deserves to be allowed; the

impugned judgments and orders deserve to be set aside and

the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under

Section 138 of the Act.

9. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The

impugned judgements and orders are set aside. The

revisionist is acquitted for charge under Section 138 of the

Act.

10. Compounding Application No. 2 of 2024 stands

disposed of, accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.05.2024 Ravi