HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL DAILY LOK ADALAT Criminal Revision No. 602 of 2024 Preet Kaur ….....Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ….….Respondents Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, Advocate, for the revisionist. Mr. J.P.Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Ankit Rana, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Daily Lok Adalat Award Present: Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. (Retd.) Mahesh Chandra Pant, Adv./Member. Revisionist- Preet Kaur and respondent no.2 Surendra Grover are present before the Daily Lok Adalat today. 2. Today, the parties have appeared before us and they have filed the compromise petition before us. 3. In this revision the applicant/accused Smt. Preet Kaur was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced for three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4,40,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,30,000/- is to be paid to the respondent no.2/complainant. It was further provided that in default of payment of fine, the revisionist will serve two months additional simple imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal was heard by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, 2 Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 20 of 2024, Smt. Preet Kaur vs. State and another, which was dismissed accordingly. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgments and orders, the revisionist preferred a revision petition before the Hon’ble High Court. The matter was placed before the Daily Lok Adalat and the parties have settled their dispute and they have filed their compromise before the Daily Lok Adalat, which runs as under: - “Case No. CRLR 602 of 2024 Nature of Case: Criminal Revision Appellant(s): Preet Kaur W/O Late Bhagwan Singh Respondent(s): Surendra Grover S/O Harbhagwan Das and Others Parties Arrived on Compromise as follows: That during the pendency of the present complaint case, both the parties have mutually resolved their dispute and have decided to settle the matter mutually in the spirit of compromise without any further litigation. That the terms of the compromise are as follows: 1. The revisionist agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lakh only) to the complainant, which will amount to full and final settlement of the disputed cheque amount which amounted to 4 lacs. 2. That the accused has paid the amount of Rs. 2 lacs to the complainant by mode of UPI transaction as well as some amount in cash, and the complainant acknowledges the said amount and has no further claims against the accused. 3. That the complainant is satisfied with the said settlement and agrees to withdraw the said case filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the revisionist. 4. That both the parties request this Hon’ble Lok Adalat to accept this compromise and pass an award based on the terms of this compromise. 5. That both the parties further undertake not to raise any future disputes related to the subject matter of this complaint and agree that this compromise is final and binding. 3 6. That this Hon’ble Lok Adalat may kindly be pleased to accept this compromise and pass an appropriate award in terms of this compromise. Signature Signature Appellant(s) Preet Kaur Respondent(s) Surendra Grover Identified by: Abhilasha Tomar Identified by: Adv. Ankit Rana Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) UK-35/2018 UK-340/2021” 5. Along with the said compromise, a photocopy of a cheque is also annexed, which was given to Shri Surendra Grover today, which is a post-dated Cheque. The parties were explained and read over the contents of the compromise and they have agreed that they have made a compromise in the said terms and conditions. 6. In view of the above compromise, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as withdrawn and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside and the revisionist is liable to be acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The compromise as well as the photocopy of cheque be made part of the award. 7. The parties have also filed an application to waive the penalty which was imposed upon the revisionist. 8. In view of the above the learned counsel for the parties prayed that the penalty imposed by the under trial court be waived in terms of the judgement of the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another, (2014) Volume 10 SCC 690. Thus, in view of the above, the penalty is waived accordingly in terms of the compromise. 4 9. The Criminal Revision is disposed of as stated above and in terms of the compromise accordingly. The compromise be made part of the award. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (Mahesh Chandra Pant, Adv./Member) (J.C.S.Rawat, J (Retd.) 13.08.2025 13.08.2025 Nahid