Vinod Kandwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2051 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vinod Kandwal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 13 February, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Criminal Revision No.70 of 2025
Vinod Kandwal                                 ...........Revisionist

                                Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another              .........Respondents

Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Pratul Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the

following on the basis of amicable settlement between

the parities:-

i. The judgment and order dated 23.08.2024,

passed in Criminal Case No.1237 of 2019,

Sandeep Kumar Gauniyal vs. Shri Vinod

Kandwal, by the court of Civil Judge (Jr.

Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri

Garhwal ("the case"). By it, the revisionist has

been convicted under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced

thereunder and;

ii. Judgment and order dated 18.01.2025, passed in

Criminal Appeal No. 37of 2024, Vinod Kandwal

Vs. Sandeep Kumar Gauniyal, by the court of

Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District

Pauri Garhwal ("the appeal"). By it, the order

passed in the case was confirmed in appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would

submit that the parties have settled the dispute

amicably. The revisionist and the complaint, who is the

respondent no.2 have filed a joint compounding

application supported by the affidavits.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would

submit that the parties have settled the dispute

amicably.

5. The revisionist as well as informant Sandeep

Kumar Gauniyal are before the Court, as identified by

their respective counsel. They have verified the

compromise. They have stated that they have settled

the dispute amicably.

6. The revisionist has deposited 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.

7. 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.

8. Having considered the nature of the offence

and other attending factors, this Court is of the view

that the criminal revision may be decided on the basis

of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the

criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

9. The criminal revision is allowed. The

judgment and order dated 23.08.2024, passed in the

case as well as judgment and order dated 18.01.2025,

passed in the appeal, is hereby quashed.

10. Compounding Application (IA) No.2 of

2025 stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.02.2025 Sanjay