MANOHAR LAL Vs. SANJAY GULERIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to deal with the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') which after trial was allowed by the trial Magistrate and the petitioner was ordered to be convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid conviction and sentence and the same was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

(2.) It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire amount has been deposited by the petitioner. It is further represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been deposited before the learned trial Court and a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- stands deposited before this Court. The amount deposited by the petitioner be released in favour of the complainantrespondent as per procedure. Since the petitioner has deposited the entire amount, the respondent is not at all interested in pursuing the complaint and the instant petition and should, therefore, be disposed of accordingly.

(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.