2025:UHC:10114 I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ASHI SH NAI THANI CRI MI NAL REVI SI ON NO. 4 5 0 OF 2 0 2 5 Amit Kumar ..…Revisionist Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another …Respondents Counsel for the Revisionist : Mr. Ankurit Raj David, Advocate. Counsel for the State : Mr. Vijay Khanduri, Brief Holder. Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Bhavya Pratap, Advocate. No. 2 through video conferencing. Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i,J. The Revisionist-Amit Kumar, was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of ₹1,70,000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Against the said judgment dated 08.01.2024, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, in Criminal Appeal No. 242 of 2022, “Amit Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another” was preferred. The said Appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.09.2022, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh District Dehradun. 2. The Revisionist- Amit Kumar, and Respondent No. 2-Lallan Prasad, are present in person and are duly identified by their respective counsels. 3. Both the Revisionist and Respondent No. 2 submitted that there were private disputes between them, which have now been amicably resolved. After such resolution, they have filed a Compounding Application (IA No. 01 of 2025) along 1 Criminal Revision No. 450 of 2025, “Amit Kumar vs.State of Uttarakhand and Another”. Ashish Naithani J. 2 2025:UHC:10114 with their affidavits, stating that the same has been executed voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion. 4. The Revisionist submits that he has paid the entire amount of ₹1,70,000/- to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 also confirms that he has received the said amount in full and final settlement, and that nothing remains outstanding between them. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the dispute between the parties was purely private in nature and has been amicably settled, the State has no objection if the present matter is decided on the basis of the said compromise. 6. Both parties have jointly requested that the present matter be decided in terms of the compromise. 7. In view of the above, the Compounding Application (IA No. 01 of 2025) is allowed. Consequently, the present Criminal Revision also deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Since the offence has been compounded, the Revisionist is entitled to acquittal. 8. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Court and the judgment dated 08.09.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court are hereby set aside. The Revisionist is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ASHI SH NAI THANI , J. Dated 14.11.2025 Shiksha/ 2 Criminal Revision No. 450 of 2025, “Amit Kumar vs.State of Uttarakhand and Another”. Ashish Naithani J. SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.11.15 10:52:50 +05'30'