RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision petition has been filed under section 397 Cr.P.C. read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Rajgarh, District Alwar in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2008 against the judgment and order dated 23.1.2008 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajgarh, District Alwar in Criminal Case No. 229 of 2003 whereby the accused petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act to suffer six months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,05,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to further under go two months simple imprisonment and dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment and order dated 23.1.2008 of the trial court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is father-in-law of complainant Manoj as daughter of petitioner Smt. Kavita married with complainant on 30.4.2002. Soon after the marriage complainant made harassment and cruelty with the daughter of petitioner and demanded dowry. In the marriage of elder daughter of petitioner cash of Rs. 1,05,000/- given to her by petitioner so as to complainant specifically demanded Rs. 1,05,000/- and deliberatelty did not send Kavita to petitioner's house. In these circumstances only to secure future of Kavita, petitioner handed over disputed cheque to complainant only for security and no legal debt was pending against the petitioner. The complainant non-petitioner No.2 did not send the daughter of the petitioner Kavita and misused the cheque given to him whereas looking to the conduct of complainant, petitioner stopped the payment of cheque. Complainant on dishonouring of cheque malafidely filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petiiner regarding dishonour of cheque No. 0032095 dated 15.10.2002 amounting to Rs. 1,05,000/-. The complainant in support of his complaint examined himself as PW.1 and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter statement of petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the petitioner specifically denied the case of complainant and in defence petitioner examined himself as DW.2 and Dw.1 Bank Manager and exhibited some documents. The trial court after hearing both the parties but without considering appreciating the evidence on record convicted the petitioner vide judgment dated 23.1.2008. The petitioner aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, preferred an appeal before the appellate court. The appellate court also without appreciating the evidence on record dismissed the appeal vide jdugment dated 7.7.2011. Dis-satisfied with the judgment dated 23.1.2008 and 7.7.2011 passed by the court blow, the accused petitioner filed this criminal revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused petitioner at this stage has stated that the petitioner and the non-petitioner No.2 have entered into compromise and hence the matter should be compounded in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in K.M.Abrahim vs. K.P. Mohammed and another, 2009 7 Supreme 627, in which following principles have been laid down :