NARAIN DUTT Vs. GAURA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI), Shimla, Circuit Court, Theog, in Cr. Appeal No. 82-T/10 of 2013 whereby he upheld and affirmed the judgment dated 30/31.8.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. in Complaint No. 257/3 of 2011, in a complaint filed by the complainant/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 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000/- to the complainant.

(2.) Today, the petitioner and complainant/respondent No. 1 are present in the Court. The complainant/respondent No. 1 is duly identified by Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. It is jointly represented by the parties that they have amicably settled the dispute/matter outside the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/- has been deposited before the learned trial Magistrate and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid to the complainant/respondent No. 1 in the Court on the last date of hearing i.e. 30.7.2015. This statement of learned counsel for the petitioner has not been denied by the complainant/respondent No. 1. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has stated that the amount which has been lying in deposit before the learned trial Magistrate be released to her alongwith up-to-date interest. The complainant/respondent No. 1 is held entitled to the amount i.e. Rs. 1,04,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial Magistrate and the same shall be released to the complainant/respondent No. 1 alongwith up-to-date interest as per procedure. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has further stated that the matter has been compromised between the parties and she 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 sensu' 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.