SUNIL SHARMA Vs. DINESH CHAUHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present revision petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 17.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Shimla, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.49- S/10 of 2015 whereby he upheld the judgment dated 04.06.2015/25.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, in RBT Case No.2080/3 of 2014/11, in a complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 against the petitioner under Sec. 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 one year and to pay compensation of Rs. 2,90,000.00 to the complainant/respondent No.1.

(2.) Today, petitioner and respondent No.1 are present in the Court and identified as such by their respectively counsel(s). It is jointly stated by learned counsel for the parties that they have amicably settled the matter. In view of subsequent development, it is not necessary to state the facts giving rise to the present revision petition because it is jointly represented by learned counsel for the parties that they have amicably settled the matter and in view of settlement the complainant/respondent No.1 does not want to pursue this case. Today, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 1,93,000.00 to the complainant/respondent No.1 and further states that he has deposited Rs. 97,000.00 before the learned trial Court, the same be released to the complainant as per procedure.

(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 him to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not setting aside the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence.