Allowed

Naushad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023CRLR/3991/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Allahabad High Court allowed the revision based on a post-judgment compromise between the parties, relying on Supreme Court precedent to set aside the earlier appellate order.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the judgment and order dated 19.09.2011; allow the criminal revision on the basis of the compromise; direct release of deposited amount to the opposite party.

Naushad Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Court No. 89

¶3

Reserved on 12.1.2023 Delivered on 4.4.2023

¶4

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3991 of 2011

Naushad

...Revisionist

v/s

State of U.P. And Anr. ...Opposite Parties

¶10

JUDGMENT

¶11

HON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

¶12

1 . Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Baranwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Maheep Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Ghanshyam Kesarwani, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶13

2 . The Present Criminal Revision has been preferred by the revisionist to set-aside the judgment and order dated 19.09.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12 Meerut in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 2011 whereby the appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal and reduced the fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- which has been awarded to the revisionist by the trial court, the revisionist has been awarded to deposit the fine of Rs.2,00,000/instead of Rs.2,50,000/- and out of the said amount Rs. 1,75,000/- as compensation will be payable to the opposite party 2 as well as order dated 01.02.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No. 9, Meerut in Misc. Case No. 37 of 2010, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by which the revisionist has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and in default of fine three months additional imprisonment and out of the said amount Rs. 2,00,000/- as compassion will be payable to the opposite party 2.

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that a compromise between the parties have been arrived on 28.9.2022 and they have settled the subject matter out of court, which has been filed by both the parties and the same has been sent for verification before the Registrar General vide order dated 07.09.2022, and the verification report of compromise has been submitted by the Registrar General, which is on record. As per compromise deed dated 28.09.2022, by which both the parties agreed to settle the subject matter in question, i.e., Rs. 1,50,000/- had been deposited by the revisionist in this Court and a draft of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by the revisionist to the opposite party no. 2 on 20.09.2022 in front of respected person of the locality by a draft bearing number 401702 and both the parties wants to decide the present criminal revision in pursuance of compromise.

¶16

Learned counsel for both the parties have prayed for settingaside the conviction of the revisionist on the basis of compromise which have been arrived between the parties.

¶17

Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which provides for the compounding of offences prescribed under the Act, which has been inserted a specific provision to make the offences under the Act compoundable. Learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 (5) SCC 663 . Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been inserted a specific provision to make the offences under the Act compoundable. In Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), it is made clear that at the stage of criminal revision, the parties have arrived at compromise and settled the matter amicably out of the Court and the compromise deed has been filed, which has been verified. The opposite party has not claimed any additional fine before this Court.

¶18

In view of the facts and circumstances, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra), the judgment and order dated 19.09.2011 is set-aside and the present criminal revision is allowed on the basis of compromise between the parties and the

¶19

¶20

amount if any, deposited by the revisionist in the court, be released forthwith in favour of the opposite party no. 2.

¶21

Dated: 4.4.2023 Ishan

¶22

(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naushad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naushad v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajesh Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

X Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and Another

X- Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rafiq Alias Chhote Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mr.X- Juvenile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others