Uttarakhand High Court
Narendra Sahrawat vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 10 January, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 20 of 2025
With
Compounding Application IA No. 1 of 2025
Narendra Sahrawat ...Revisionist
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Gaurav Singh, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Siddharth Bisht and Mr. Himanshu Sain, Brief
Holder for the State.
Mr. Subhash Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no. 2.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this revision is made to the
followings:-
(i) Judgment and order dated 05.07.2023,
passed in Complaint Case No. 339 of
2016, M/s Rahul Tyres Vs. Narendra
Sahrawat, by the court of Civil
Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh,
District Dehradun ("the case"), by which
the revisionist has been convicted under
Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act"), and
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of nine months
and a fine of Rs. 2,12,000/-. In default of
payment of fine, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of 15
days.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 25.11.2024,
passed in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of
2023, Narendra Sahrawat Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, by the court of
I Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh,
District Dehradun, by which the appeal
filed by the revisionist has been
dismissed and the judgment and order
passed in the case has been affirmed.
2. A joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2025)
has been filed along with the affidavits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that
parties have settled the dispute amicably; the revisionist has
deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand
State 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.12, dated
10.01.2025 of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services
Authority has been tendered. Let it be placed on record.
5. The revisionist and the respondent no.2 joined the
proceedings through video conferencing, as identified by
their respective counsel. They have verified the compromise.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Compounding Application No. 1 of 2025 stands
disposed of, accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
10.01.2025
Ravi Bisht
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
RAVI BISHT 2.5.4.20=ded921477e34a304cbcb0b52d4a59f37e6d201
8d38d0b669a5c068799391e6bb, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AA64B1F44E60E652AE5485ED764961E4E
52FD29C6F03C20917020ED093405536, cn=RAVI BISHT
Date: 2025.01.10 01:25:50 +05'30'
