Satish Chandra Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Shri Prashant Pandey learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2/complainant.

¶13

The instant criminal revision under Section 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure akin Section 438 / 442 BNSS against the judgement and order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the learned court of Additional District and Session Judge Court no. 6 Lucknow in Criminal Appeal no 137/2017 (Satish Chandra Shukla versus State of U. P. & another) by which the learned appellate court has rejected the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgement and order dated 12.05.2017 passed by the Additional Court, Room no-5, Lucknow in complaint case no. 3580 / 2012 (Rajan Sonkar vs Satish Chandra Shukla) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act Police Station Hussainganj, District-Lucknow, whereby the revisionist has been convicted and sentenced under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of rs 2,00,000/-(two lacs) out of which Rs.1,50,000/-(one lacs fifty thousand) has been awarded as compensation in favour of complainant / opposite party no.2. In default of payment of fine 3 months additional simple imprisonment.

¶14

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that due to intervention of some respectable persons and well-wishers of the parties, a compromise has been arrived at between them, and the parties are inclined to get the matter resolved through compromise. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that in paragraph -2 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that the revisionist and opposite party no.2 have already signed the compromise dated 15/12/2025, outside the court, on the grounds that the amount awarded by the learned trial court, amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- has already been paid to respondent no.2 after the filing of the present revision by order of this court.

¶15

CRLR No. 1332 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

The original copy of the demand draft is annexed as Annexure no,1 to the counter affidavit, which has been issued on 12/12/2025 for Rs. 1,50,000/- in favor of the complainant. The original compromise dated 15.12.2025 has already been filed along with the supplementary affidavit, which is addressed to this Court. It is stated in the compromise that in view of mutual settlement between the parties, the revisionist seeks to withdraw the present criminal revision as the dispute has already been resolved between the parties in terms of the compromise, dated 15/12/2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that since the respondent no.2/complainant has compounded the offense out of his free will without any influence and he is no longer interested in implementation of the sentence awarded to the revisionist by both the courts below, present criminal revision may be disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶19

As the complainant has compounded the offense which is compoundable under the Act and the conviction of the revisionist and the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the learned appellate court, is hereby quashed in terms of compromise. Consequently, the revisionist stands acquitted of the alleged charges.

¶20

The revision stands disposed of in terms of the compromise.

¶21

January 8, 2026 dk/

¶22

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow Thru. Member Secretary vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 6 Others

Utsav Singh @ Lucky Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sharath Chandrasekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prabhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rangnath Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gyanchand vs Union of India Thru. Intelligee Officer N.C.B. Lucknow