Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17960
Decided on: 04.05.2023
Present:
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the revisionist appeared through Video Conferencing.
Mr. V.S. Rathore, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for complainant/respondent no.2 appeared through Video Conferencing
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 401 -- Cheque bounce case – Compromise after Conviction – Acquittal -- Since the revisionist and the complainant have settled the dispute, the offence u/s 138 of the Act gets compounded -- Consequently, the revisionist is entitled to acquittal from the charges as levelled against him -- Orders under challenge set aside -- Revisionist acquitted.
(Para 1, 7-9)
***
VIVEK BHARTI SHARMA, J. (ORAL) –
The challenge in this revision is made to the following:-
(i) Order dated 21.05.2018, passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 4th, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint/Case No. 1304 of 2012, Rashmi Sharma vs. Bimal Singh Thapa, which relates for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 188, Police Station Kotwali Dehradun, District Dehradun, and
(ii) The judgment and order dated 27.10.2018, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Dehradun District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2018. By it, the appeal has been dismissed.
2. The revisionist and the complainant have filed a joint Compounding Application No. 2 of 2023 alongwith their respective affidavits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.
4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute; 15% of the cheque amount has been deposited, as required to be deposited in such cases, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,(2010) 5 SCC 663 = (2010) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15231.
5. Today, the complainant/respondent no.2 joined the proceedings of the Court through Video Conferencing, as identified by her respective counsel.
6. Both the parties have accepted the compromise. The Court particularly asked the complainant/respondent no.2, who is the complainant in the case, who would submit that she has settled the dispute with the revisionist as she has received the entire money.
7. Since the revisionist and the complainant have settled the dispute, the offence under Section 138 of the Act gets compounded. Consequently, the revisionist is entitled to acquittal from the charges as levelled against him in the present case.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The orders, under challenge, are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
9. The Compounding Application IA No.2 of 2023 stands disposed of, accordingly.
Petition allowed.
********