This criminal revision involving a cheque dishonour case is disposed of following an amicable settlement recorded via a compromise deed dated 18.10.2021. The court set aside the conviction and exonerated the petitioner.
Judgment of trial court dated 14.11.2013 and appellate court dated 06.08.2016 set aside; petitioner exonerated of all charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Sr. No. 09
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CRR No.45/2016 IA No.1/2016
Yesh Paul
….Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through :- Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
V/s
Param Vir Singh
….Respondent(s)
Through :- Mr. Rajeev Chargotra, Advocate
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
ORDER
03.12.2021
This criminal revision is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kathua [“Appellate Court”] in file No.09/Appeal titled Yash Paul Gupta v. Param Vir Singh, whereby the Appellate Court has confirmed the conviction of the petitioner recorded by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kathua [“trial Court”] vide its judgment dated 14.11.2013.
As it emerges from the impugned judgment, the complaint lodged by the respondent under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner had its genesis to a business transaction between the petitioner and the respondents and the issuance of cheque amounting to Rs.1,70,000/- by the petitioner in favour of the respondent which was later dishonoured by the banker of the petitioner. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of commission of offence and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of one year with fine of Rs.3,40,000/-, to be paid to the respondent-complainant. The judgment of conviction was assailed by the petitioner before the Appellate Court, which
2 CRR No.45/2016
concurred with the trial Court and upheld the conviction. This is how the petitioner is before this Court by way of instant revision petition.
During the pendency of the revision petition, the parties have amicably settled the issue and have recorded the settlement in the compromise deed dated 18.10.2021, which deed the parties have placed on record. As is noted in order dated 22.10.2021, both the parties had appeared before this Court and made a statement that they had entered into a compromise voluntarily and had amicably settled the dispute between them.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that pursuant to the settlement of dispute, he does not wish to prosecute the petitioner anymore and shall have no objection, if judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court and upheld by the Appellate Court is set aside.
Having regard to the submissions made at the Bar coupled with the statement made by the parties in person and also in view of the amicable settlement of dispute having been reduced in writing in terms of the compromise deed dated 18.10.2021, I am of the considered view that ends of justice would be met by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court as well as Appellate court.
Ordered accordingly.
The judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court dated 14.11.2013 and the judgment of Appellate Court dated 06.08.2016, whereby conviction of the petitioner was upheld, both are set aide and the petitioner is exonerated of all the charges.
(Sanjeev Kumar) Judge
Jammu: 03.12.2021 Vinod, PS
Whether the order is speaking :Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
1 issue framed by the court
Whether conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is to be set aside due to post-trial settlement.
Yesh Paul
Param Vir Singh
Sanjeev Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
