VIKAS GAUTAM Vs. RAMESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 14.02.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Criminal Appeal No.67-N/10 of 2010 whereby he affirmed the judgment dated 18.08.2010/19.08.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, in Criminal Complaint No.151/3 of 09/08, in a complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') wherein the petitioner was convicted to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/- to the respondent.

(2.) In view of subsequent development, it is not necessary to state the facts giving rise to the present revision petition because it is jointly represented by learned counsel for the parties that they have settled the matter and the respondent No.1, who is duly identified by his counsel, states that he does not press his claim against the petitioner since the matter stands settled outside the Court. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in the Registry of this Court and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- before the learned trial Court. He has further stated that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 in cash in the Court today.

(3.) From the records of the case, I find this is not a case wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can 'stricto senso' be termed to be an offence against the State. Therefore, this is a case where the continuation of criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence.