VIKRANT SOOD Vs. UCO BANK, NIGAM VIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Looking to the nature of order, I propose to pass, it is not at all necessary to delve into the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant/respondent instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') against the petitioner on the allegations that a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- handed over by the petitioner to respondent in order to discharge his liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of the respondent by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Shimla and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainant/respondent.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 26.08.2011, though the petitioner Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge (Forest), Shimla, H.P., however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.04.2014, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

(3.) Today, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the respondent states that the matter stands amicably settled with the petitioner whereby not only the cheque amount but the entire outstanding loan amount stands paid by the petitioner to him and there is nothing due and recoverable from the petitioner. Since, the petitioner not only deposited the entire cheque amount but has also liquidated the entire loan amount, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be given quietus in terms of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.