NAGIN CHAND PANWAR Vs. SUPER TREADS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 03.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No.: RBT- 89-S/10 of 2014/2013, whereby he affirmed the judgment dated 09.01.2013 and 28.02.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Shimla, in Case No.1148-3 of 2011, in a complaint filed by the respondent No.1 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 two months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 55,000/- to the respondent No.1.

(2.) Petitioner and respondent No.1 are present in the Court today and identified as such by their respective counsel. 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 amicably settled the matter and in view of the compromise the respondent No.1 does not want to pursue the case any further.

(3.) From the records of the case, I find that 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.