MEENAKSHI SAIN Vs. SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE

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 complainant/respondent No.1 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.2,50,000/- handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.1 in order to discharge her liability had been dishonoured. The complaint was decided in favour of respondent No.1 by learned Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, H.P., and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment. for a period of one year and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- to complainant/respondent No.1.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Magistrate on 13.01.2015/29.01.2015, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Shimla, however, the same came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.08.2016, constraining the petitioner to file the instant revision petition.

(3.) It is fairly represented by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the matter stands compromised between the parties and in fact, respondent No.1 has refinanced the petitioner. As regards the compensation amount, the same has been carried forward at the time when the petitioner was refinanced loan. He further states that in view of the subsequent developments, the complainant/respondent No.1 is not interested in prosecuting or suing the petitioner and, therefore, the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Courts below may be set aside.