Uttarakhand High Court
Kamal Singh Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 14 May, 2024
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2024
With
Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024
Kamal Singh Bisht ......Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another ....Respondents
Present: Ms. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Himanshu Rathore, 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 09.11.2022,
passed in Criminal Case No. 2478 of 2021,
Pradeep Rathore Vs. Kamal Singh Bisht by
the court of Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital (for short "the case").
By it, the revisionist has been convicted
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act") and
sentenced to undergo one month's simple
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,05,000/-.
Provisions have also been made for
compensation and;
(ii) Judgment and order dated 11.03.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2022,
Kamal Singh Bisht Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and another, by the court of
Additional District and Sessions (IInd),
Nainital ("the appeal"). By it, the judgment
and order dated 09.11.2022, passed in the
case has been upheld.
2. A joint compounding application has been filed
alongwith 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 settled the dispute amicably; the
revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with
the Uttarakhand Legal Services Authority, in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC
663. Receipt No. 44 dated 14.05.2024 of the Uttarakhand
State Legal Services Authority has been tendered. Let it be
placed on record.
5. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 are
present in person before this Court duly identified by their
respective counsel. They have verified the compromise.
6. The Court particularly asked the respondent
no.2, he would submit that he has received the money and
settled the dispute.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The
impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The
revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of
the Act.
9. Compounding application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.05.2024
Jitendra
