Sunil vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sunil vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal revision allowed; the conviction order dated 7.2.2024 (Complaint Case No.12412/2020, Saharanpur) and the appellate order dated 13.1.2025 (Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024) set aside; deposited amount, if unpaid, to be released to Opposite Party No.2 forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal revision challenging the conviction of the revisionist under Section 138 N.I. Act should be allowed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the revisionist and Opposite Party No.2.

Court's answer

An offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act is a dispute of civil nature and it can be settled by the parties at any stage of litigation.

Ratio / Principle

On the parties' amicable settlement and their categorical statements, the criminal revision is allowed and the trial court's order dated 7.2.2024 in Complaint Case No.12412/2020 is set aside.

Key takeaways

The order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024 is set aside.ratio¶¶14
The amount deposited before the trial court/appellate court, if not paid to Opposite Party No.2 till date, shall be released in his favour forthwith.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Manjive Shukla, J.) allowed Criminal Revision No. 1021 of 2025 on the basis of an amicable compromise between Sunil (revisionist) and Opposite Party No.2, who were personally present and confirmed the settlement. Holding that an offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act is a dispute of civil nature which can be settled by the parties at any stage of litigation, the Court set aside the judgment and order dated 7.2.2024 of the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.12412/2020 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Sunil), whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 138 N.I. Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment of three months with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, as well as the judgment and order dated 13.1.2025 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024 dismissing his appeal. Any amount deposited before the trial court/appellate court, if not paid to Opposite Party No.2, was directed to be released in his favour forthwith. Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:86989.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86989

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1021 of 2025

Revisionist :- Sunil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shravana Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Mahesh Dwivedi,G.A.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard Mr. Shravana Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. Mahesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 7.2.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.12412/2020 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Sunil) whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act and had been sentenced for simple imprisonment of three months along with fine of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the judgment and order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024 (Sunil Vs. State of U.P. and another) whereby, the appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence had been affirmed.

Sri Shravana Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri Mahesh Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 have submitted that the revisionist and Opposite Party No.2 have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute, amicably.

The revisionist and Opposite Party No.2 are present before this Court in person and have been identified by their respective counsels. They have categorically stated before this Court that they have settled their dispute, amicably.

Learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2 and the

Opposite Party No.2, who is present before this Court in person, have submitted that they have no objection if this criminal revision is allowed in terms of the compromise.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that both the parties have settled their dispute amicably, outside the Court. It is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act is a dispute of civil nature and it can be settled by the parties at any stage of litigation.

In view of the aforesaid reasons and categorical statements given by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2, this criminal revision is allowed. The order 7.2.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.12412/2020 (Ravindra Kumar Vs. Sunil) and the order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2024 (Sunil Vs. State of U.P. and another), are hereby set aside.

The amount, deposited before the trial court/appellate court, if not paid to Opposite Party No.2 till date, shall be released in his favour forthwith.

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Salim

Digitally signed by :- SALIM PRAVEJ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad