1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 9975 OF 2016 ] PRAVIND KUMAR                              Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS RADHE BALLABH MISHRA  & ANR.               Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

3. We have been told that during the pendency of this  matter  before  this  Court,  the  parties  have reached an amicable settlement of the whole dispute for an amount of Rs. 4.5 Lakhs.  The said amount was deposited before this Court and the same was directed to be withdrawn by the first respondent along with accrued interest.  The amount covered by the cheque was only Rs. 3 Lakhs.  The first respondent herein was  paid  the  litigation  expenses  to  the  tune  of Rs.25,000/-.

2

4. Having regard to the fact that the cheques were issued in the years 2010 and 2011, we are of the view that a further payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) would be just, fair and equitable.

5. Accordingly, we direct the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pupri at Sitamarhi Dist., Bihar, to release an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) to the first  respondent  and  the  balance,  along  with interest, if any, on the whole amount may be released to the appellant.  The court shall do the needful regarding the release of the amount within a period of one month from today.

6.  Since it is a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable  Instruments  Act  and  since  the  first respondent  has  entered  full  satisfaction  of  the payments,  and  in  view  of  the  peculiar  facts  and circumstances  of  the  transactions  leading  to  the litigation, we are of the view that it will only in the interest of justice that the criminal proceedings which  ended  up  in  the  conviction,  are  quashed  in order to do complete justice between the parties. 7. Therefore,  this  appeal  is  allowed.   The conviction  and  sentence  are  set  aside  and  the

3

complaint filed by the respondent before the learned Magistrate is dismissed.

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; July 12, 2017.