Allowed

Mulkiraj Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC3 May 2024CRLR/226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding cheque dishonour, the High Court of Uttarakand allowed the revision and acquitted the appellant after confirming that the parties had amicably settled the dispute, the requisite amount was deposited, and the offence was compounded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgments and orders set aside; revisionist acquitted of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Mulkiraj Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand — Cheque Dishonour | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Criminal Revision No.226 of 2024 With Compounding Application IA No.2 of 2024

¶3

Mulkiraj Saini ...Revisionist

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents

¶6

Present:-

¶7

Mr. Surendra Kumar Bahl, Advocate for the revisionist through video conferencing. Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Joshi, AGA for the State. Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶10

The challenge in this revision is made to the

¶11

following:-

¶12

(i) Judgment and order dated 26.11.2022, passed

¶13

in Complaint Case No. 224 of 2022, Vijay Godwani (Hemlata Godwani deceased) Vs. Mulkiraj Saini, by the court of Judicial Magistrate/IV Additional Civil Judge, Haridwar (“the case”). By it, the convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.1,70,000/-. In default of payment of fine to

¶14

¶15

undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months and;

¶16

(ii) Judgment and order dated 23.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2022, Mulkiraj Saini Vs. State and another by learned V^th Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar (“the appeal”). By it, the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and the order passed in the case of affirmed.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶18

A joint compounding application (IA No. 2 of 2024) has been filed along with the affidavits.

¶19

Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. In fact, on 01.05.2024, learned counsel for the revisionist has sought two days time to deposit the 15% cheque amount, as required by virtue of the direction in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663.

¶20

Now, the office has reported that the amount has been deposited.

¶21

¶22

The revisionist as well as the respondent no.2 joined the proceedings through video conferencing duly identified by their respective counsel. . They have verified the compromise.

¶23

The Court particularly asked the respondent no.2. He would submit that he has received the money and settled the dispute.

¶24

Since the offence has been compounded, this Court is of the view that it is a case, which may be decided on the basis of amicable settlement between the parties. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be allowed; the impugned judgments and orders deserve to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

¶25

Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The

¶26

impugned judgements and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted for charge under Section 138 of the Act.

¶27

Compounding Application No. 2 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶28

Ravi

Mulkiraj Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mulkiraj Saini v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Vikas Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Jeewan Ram Vs State of Uttarakhand

Kalvendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rizwan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ashish Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand