Uttarakhand High Court
24 June vs Balbir Singh Chauhan And Others on 24 June, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:5320
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No. 869 of 2024
24 June, 2025
Atal Sharma ........Revisionist
Versus
Balbir Singh Chauhan and others .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Rajendra Arya, learned counsel for respondent/complainant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral).
This criminal revision is filed against the
judgment and order dated 06.01.2024 passed by learned 1st
Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh in Criminal Appeal
No.33/2021 "Atal Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand &
another" as well as the judgment/order dated 25.02.2021
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Rishikesh in Criminal Complaint No. 334 of 2015,
whereby the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and has been sentenced
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months
along with a fine of ` 12,05,000/- out of the fine amount `
12,00,000/- will have to be given as compensation to the
respondent/complainant and ` 5,000/- fine will have to be
paid into the Government account with default stipulation of
additional two months simple imprisonment.
2. As per the report of the Registry, there is a delay
2025:UHC:5320
of 238 days in filing the present revision. An application for
condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit, has been
filed with the averments that the delay of 238 days occurred
due to the reasons that during the pendency of the appeal
filed by the revisionist, the respondent/complainant has
expired on 20.03.2021 and subsequently when the legal
representatives of the deceased were contacted the revisionist
then they became aware of the factum of settlement between
the complainant and revisionist, therefore, the delay in filing
the present revision be condoned.
3. Learned counsel for respondent has no objection
to the grant of application for condonation of delay.
4. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay condonation
application is allowed. Delay in filing the criminal revision is
condoned.
5. Along with the present revision a Compounding
Application IA No.1/2025 duly supported by affidavits of the
revisionist and Shivansh Chauhan and Smt. Sunita Chauhan,
who are son and wife(legal heir) of respondent/complainant
has been filed by the parties stating therein that the
revisionist and legal heir of respondent/complainant have
settled their dispute amicably outside the Court and now they
have no grudge against each other. It is also stated that both
the parties have entered into compromise with their own free
will without any fear or pressure and that the respondent no.2
does not want to prosecute the revisionist any further.
6. Revisionist Mr. Atal Sharma and Mr. Shivansh
Chauhan and Smt. Sunita Chauhan are present in the Court
2025:UHC:5320
through Video Conferencing, duly identified by their
counsel.
7. Mr. Shivansh Chauhan and Smt. Sunita Chauhan,
legal heir of respondent/complainant would submit that the
revisionist has paid the entire amount through cheque to him
and now he does not wish to pursue the case any further.
8. In view of the fact that a compounding
application was filed by the parties, the Coordinate Bench of
this Court, vide order dated 02.06.2025, directed the parties
to appear before the Secretary, District Legal Services
Authority, Dehradun for recording of their statements and for
verification of the compromise deed. The revisionist was also
directed to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- before the concerned
trial court.
9. Pursuant to the said order, the Secretary, District
Legal Services Authority, Dehradun has submitted a report
dated 12.06.2025, which clearly indicates that the parties
have amicably settled their dispute and have duly verified the
contents of the compromise deed. It is further mentioned in
the report that the revisionist has deposited ₹50,000/- with
the concerned trial court, in compliance with the directions
of this Court and in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.,
(2010) 5 SCC 663. A receipt acknowledging the said deposit
has also been annexed with the compliance report dated
12.06.2025.
10. Since both the parties have settled the dispute,
which was purely private in nature, there is no use in keeping
this revision pending and it would be appropriate to decide
2025:UHC:5320
the same on the basis of compromise arrived at between the
parties.
11. Consequently, impugned judgment/order dated
06.01.2024 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
Rishikesh in Criminal Appeal No.33/2021 "Atal Sharma vs.
State of Uttarakhand & another" as well as the
judgment/order dated 25.02.2021 passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rishikesh in
Criminal Complaint No. 334 of 2015 are set aside.
12. Subject to the above, the criminal revision is
allowed and the revisionist is acquitted of the charge of
offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act on the basis of compromise arrived at
between the parties.
13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
24.06.2025
Mamta
