Uttarakhand High Court
4 August vs Khajan Bhatt on 14 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7184
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 502 of 2025
14 August, 2025
Harish Chandra
--Revisionist
Versus
Khajan Bhatt
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Subhash Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This is a criminal revision filed under Section
438/442 of BNSS, 2023 against the judgment and order
dated 30.09.2022, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Nainital
in Criminal Case No.1291 of 2019, Khajan Bhatt vs. Harish
Chandra, whereby the revisionist was convicted under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to
undergo three months' S.I. with fine of Rs.1,30,000/-, out
of which, an amount of compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- to
be paid to the respondent (complainant) and remaining
amount Rs.5,000/- will be deposited in the Government
Exchequer with default stipulation of two months' S.I. as
well as the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024, passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Appeal
No.16 of 2023, Harish Chandra vs. State of Uttarakhand &
another, which too was dismissed by learned appellate
court and the judgment and order dated 30.09.2022 by
which the revisionist was convicted was affirmed.
2. Along with criminal revision, joint compounding
application (IA No.3/2025) has been filed by the parties.
2025:UHC:7184
3. The present criminal revision has been filed on a
premise that parties have entered into compromise and
settled the dispute amicably by making the payment of
amount under disputed cheque to the respondent-Khajan
Bhatt.
4. A compounding application supported by
separate affidavits of the parties has been filed in which
it has been stated that the parties have settled the
dispute amicably and since the amount under cheque
has been received by respondent, therefore, there is no
reason to continue with the aforesaid proceedings.
5. Revisionist is in jail. Mr. Ajit Kumar, son of the
revisionist is doing parivi on his behalf, who is present in
the Court, duly identified by his counsel. Respondent-
Khajan Bhatt is also present in the Court being duly
identified by his respective counsel.
6. In the compounding application, it has been
stated that revisionist has deposited Rs.26,000/- which is
20% out of the Rs.1,30,000/- before the learned trial court
and Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.26,000/- has been withdrawn by
the complainant and the revisionist has also given the
remaining amount to the complainant during amicable
settlement taken place between the parties in case.
7. On interaction with respondent-Khajan Bhatt,
he stated that he received an amount under cheque and he
does not want to pursue with the case anymore.
8. Since the parties have settled the dispute
amicably and do not want to pursue the aforesaid criminal
case, therefore, there is no useful purpose for keeping this
criminal case pending. The judgments and orders passed
by learned trial court as well as appellate court impugned
in this criminal revision deserve to be set-aside.
2025:UHC:7184
9. Accordingly, compounding application
(IA/3/2025) is allowed. The compromise arrived at
between the parties is accepted. With the result, the
judgment and order dated 30.09.2022, passed by Judicial
Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No.1291 of 2019,
Khajan Bhatt vs. Harish Chandra, whereby the revisionist
was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and sentenced to undergo three months' S.I. with fine
of Rs.1,30,000 with default stipulation of two months' S.I.
as well as the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024,
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal
Appeal No.16 of 2023, Harish Chandra vs. State of
Uttarakhand & another, are hereby set-aside, subject to the
condition that revisionist shall deposit 15% of the
compensation i.e. Rs.19,500/- as compensation in terms of
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Damodar S.
Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. reported in AIR 2010
SC1907 before the trial court within two months from
today.
10. Revisionist is in jail. He is directed to be released
forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.
11. Present criminal revision thus stands allowed
on the basis of compromise entered into between the
parties. If the amount of Rs.19,500/- is not deposited by
the revisionist within the time given by this Court, this
judgment and order compounding the criminal revision
shall automatically be treated as a nullity.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
14.08.2025
AK
