Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 249 (GAU)

Siddartha Ghosh v. State Of Assam

2020-02-20

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard the learned counsel Mr. D. R. Saikia, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for setting aside and quashing of the judgment dated 28.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Criminal Appeal No. 203/2017. 3. For better appreciation of this revision petition, the facts which lead to filing of the case against the petitioner may be stated as under. 4. The petitioner issued a Cheque worth Rs. 4,50,000/- to the respondent No. 2. The said Cheque was dishonored in the Bank. Thereafter, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to undergo 6 (six) months of imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/-. 5. The judgment of the Trial Court was assailed before the learned Sessions Judge but the petitioner could not succeed. 6. Now, the learned counsel, Mr. Islam, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the respondent and the petitioner have entered into an agreement to settle the dispute. The copy of the said agreement has been filed by Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The Deed of Agreement shows that the present petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the respondent. They agreed for payment of an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total and out of which, 1,30,000/- has already been paid and the balance amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- would be paid within next 60 days. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation &Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 677 , held that when a compromise has been arrived at between the parties, by which the parties have withdrawn all claims and allegations against each other, technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way in quashing the criminal proceedings since the same would be a futile exercise. 9. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 has held: wxyz " We need to emphasise that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilized in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law." zyxw 10. Coming back to the case in hand, Since the respondent, who was the complainant of the complaint case, has filed this Agreement and I have reasons to believe that the parties have actually compromised the matter. Considering this fact, the judgment dated 28.03.2019, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Criminal Appeal No. 203/2017 and the judgment dated 07.08.2017, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in C.R. Case No. 177 c /2016, are set aside and quashed. 11. The Criminal Revision Petition stands disposed of.