IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION NO.203 OF 2005 Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Hari Kishan Gupta ……… Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal 2. M/s Babu Ram Samir Kumar ……Respondents Dated: April 01, 2009 Sri Mohd. Azim, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the revisionist Sri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State/Respondent No.1 Sri Arun Mohan Saklani, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.57/2004 and Criminal Revision No.1/2005, whereby the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of the revisionist and has partly allowed the revision filed by the respondent no.2, confirming the judgment and order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Case No.12/2003. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for both the parties have filed supplementary affidavit along with the compromise deed supported by the respective affidavits in which it is stated that both the parties, namely, Anil Kumar Gupta (revisionist) and M/s Babu Ram Samir Kumar (respondent no.2) have entered into a compromise. In the affidavit of Sri Samir Kumar Aggarwal, it is stated that the respondent no.2 has received the amount of cheque i.e. Rs.20,101/- from the revisionist outside the court. It is further stated that the revisionist has already deposited the fine Rs.5,000/- u/s 138 N.I. Act before the trial court. Learned counsel for both the parties prayed that the revision may be decided in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the parties and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the learned Session Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.57/2004 and the judgment and order dated 24.11.2004 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Criminal Case No.12/2003. 4. After considering all the facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, it is expedient in the interest of justice to decide the case in terms of the compromise arrived at in between the parties. The compromise filed on behalf of the revisionist as well as respondent no.2 is accepted. 5. In these circumstances, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the judgment and order dated 18.3.2005 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No.57/2004 as well as the judgment and order dated 24.11.2004 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Case No.12/2003, are hereby set aside. The revision is disposed of accordingly. (Dharam Veer, J.) 01.04.2009 RG