IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.70 of 2025 Vinod Kandwal …….....Revisionist Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another …......Respondents Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. S.C. Dumka, AGA for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Pratul Kumar, Advocate for respondent no.2. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this revision is made to the following on the basis of amicable settlement between the parities:- i. The judgment and order dated 23.08.2024, passed in Criminal Case No.1237 of 2019, Sandeep Kumar Gauniyal vs. Shri Vinod Kandwal, by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal (“the case”). By it, the revisionist has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced thereunder and; ii. Judgment and order dated 18.01.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 37of 2024, Vinod Kandwal Vs. Sandeep Kumar Gauniyal, by the court of 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal (“the appeal”). By it, the order passed in the case was confirmed in appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. The revisionist and the complaint, who is the respondent no.2 have filed a joint compounding application supported by the affidavits. 4. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the parties have settled the dispute amicably. 5. The revisionist as well as informant Sandeep Kumar Gauniyal are before the Court, as identified by their respective counsel. They have verified the compromise. They have stated that they have settled the dispute amicably. 6. The revisionist has deposited 15% of the cheque amount, as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H., (2010)5 SCC 663. 3 7. The Court particularly asked the complainant (respondent no.2), he would submit that the matter has been settled and he has received the entire amount. 8. Having considered the nature of the offence and other attending factors, this Court is of the view that the criminal revision may be decided on the basis of compromise between the parties. Accordingly, the criminal revision deserves to be allowed. 9. The criminal revision is allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.08.2024, passed in the case as well as judgment and order dated 18.01.2025, passed in the appeal, is hereby quashed. 10. Compounding Application (IA) No.2 of 2025 stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 13.02.2025 Sanjay