Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 171 (UTT)

Dushyant Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-03-06

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings: (i) Judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, passed in Criminal Complaint No. 559 of 2016, Kamlesh Dangwal Vs. Dushyant Sharma, by the court of Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced for 3 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Provisions have also been made for compensation. (ii) Judgment and order dated 05.01.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2022, Dushyant Sharma Vs. State and Another, by the court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. By it, the judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, passed in the case, has been upheld. 2. A joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2024) 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 vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . Receipt no. 33, dated 28.02.2024 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. The Court particularly asked the respondent no. 2. He would submit that he has received the money and settled the dispute. 7. 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. 8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act. 9. Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.