Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Dushyant Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 151 of 2024, Compounding Application IA No. 1 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gaurav Singh.
For the Respondents: Vipul Painuli, Nikhil Singhal, Sushil Kumar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded, leading to acquittal when the parties reach an amicable settlement.

Headnote:
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - SECTION 138 - The court addressed the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which pertains to the dishonor of cheques. The court interpreted the law in light of an amicable settlement between the parties, emphasizing the importance of compounding the offense. The court's decision to acquit the revisionist was influenced by the parties' agreement and the deposit made with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, aligning with the precedent set in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was upheld by the appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the parties had settled the dispute amicably and verified the compromise. The revisionist had deposited 15% of the cheque amount as required by law.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 can be set aside based on an amicable settlement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the offense had been compounded and the parties had reached a settlement, the conviction could be overturned, allowing for acquittal under Section 138.
Result: The revision was allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the revisionist was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the followings:

(i) Judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, passed in Criminal Complaint No. 559 of 2016, Kamlesh Dangwal Vs. Dushyant Sharma, by the court of Judicial Magistrate Rishikesh, District Dehradun (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced for 3 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Provisions have also been made for compensation.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 05.01.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2022, Dushyant Sharma Vs. State and Another, by the court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. By it, the judgment and order dated 15.09.2022, passed in the case, has been upheld.

2. A joint compounding application (IA No. 1 of 2024) has been filed along with the affidavits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that parties have settled the dispute amicably; the revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663. Receipt no. 33, dated 28.02.2024 of the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority has been tendered. Let it be placed on record.

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

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

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders are set aside. The revisionist is acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Act.

9. Compounding Application No. 1 of 2024 stands disposed of, accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document