Sec.138 Read with sec.147 of NI Act and under sec. 320[8] of Cr.P.C. - is a compoundable offence even after conviction and in appeal stage also
in terms of the settlement, it is clarified that the appellant now stands acquitted of the charges levelled against him in terms of Section 147 of the Act read with Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.18 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.181 of 2021
arising out of Diary No.8327 of 2020)
RAGHUNATH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the order dated 26.09.2019 passed
by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal
Revision (Crl. R.) No.26 of 2012.
The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act” for short) and was
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two weeks with imposition
of fine in the sum of Rs.4,50,000/-, out of which Rs.4,40,000/-
were to be made over to the original complainant.
The appeal arising therefrom having been dismissed, the
aforementioned revision application was preferred before the
High Court.
The High Court affirmed the view taken by the courts below
and dismissed the revision which order is presently under
challenge.
It must be mentioned that the original complainant and the
2
appellant have since then entered into a settlement, the terms
of which have been placed on record.
Mr. Robin Majumdar, learned counsel appearing for the
original complainant has accepted that a compromise has been
entered into between the parties. It is further accepted that
in terms of the compromise, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- has been
received by the original complainant.
Since the parties have settled the matter, the settlement
is taken on record.
Disposing of the present appeal in terms of the settlement,
it is clarified that the appellant now stands acquitted of the
charges levelled against him in terms of Section 147 of the Act
read with Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the relationship between the parties will be governed
by the terms of the compromise.
The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
......................J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
......................J.
[HEMANT GUPTA]
......................J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 7, 2021.
3
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.3 SECTION II
(HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (CRL.) Diary No.8327 of 2018
RAGHUNATH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R.; IA No.115927/2020 – FOR CONDONATION OF
DELAY IN FILING; and, IA No.115928/2020 – FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.)
Date : 07-01-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
For Appellant(s) Mr. Saju Jacob, Adv.
Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Robin Majumdar, AOR
Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the Signed Order.
(MUKESH NASA) (PRADEEP KUMAR)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Order is placed on the File)
