Rachhpal Singh Maini vs Anil Kumar Mehta

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present revision petition has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 24.09.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran, whereby, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2012 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran, was upheld, vide which, the petitioner was convicted for offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 5000/-. After passing of said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, there was a compromise between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant-Rikhi Ram expired on 11.11.2013 and the compromise was effected with his son, namely, Anil Kumar Mehta, who is present in the Court.

It has been mentioned in the compromise that with the intervention of respectables and relatives, the dispute between the parties has been compromised and all legal heirs of complainant-Rikhi Ram, have no objection in quashing of the proceedings initiated against the accused person. The compromise has been signed by all legal heirs of deceased-Rikhi Ram. It has also been mentioned in the compromise that there is no other legal heir of deceased-Rikhi Ram except the persons mentioned in the compromise deed annexed as Annexure P-1 with this revision petition.

Notice on behalf of respondent-complainant has been accepted by Mr. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate, who is present in the Court.

Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions from the complainant-respondent, has affirmed the factum of compromise and submits that the complainant-respondent has no objection in case this petition is allowed as he is satisfied with the compromise and nothing is due now.

Since the matter has been compromised between the parties and complainant-respondent has no objection in any manner as he does not want to continue with the proceedings against the petitioner; and amount in dispute has been paid to the complainant; and other legal heirs of deceased-Rikhi Ram, has also no objection in any manner; moreover, the offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable; and as the complainant-respondent has no objection and he does not want to continue with the proceedings, no purpose would be served in case, the proceedings are continued in future. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.07.2012 and judgment dated 24.09.2013 and other proceedings arising in pursuance of complaint are set-aside. The petitioner is in custody. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Ordered accordingly.