Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/83/2026 of BILAL SIDDIQUI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 3 February 2026
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No.83 of 2026 Bilal Siddiqui …….....Revisionist Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another …......Respondents Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Advocate for the revisionist. Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. Ayush
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.83 of 2026
Bilal Siddiqui
…….....Revisionist
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and another …......Respondents
Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Advocate for the revisionist.
Mr. Vikas Uniyal, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1.
Mr. Ayush Saxena, Advocate for respondent no.2 appeared through video conferencing.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2024, Bilal Siddiqui vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist has been dismissed and the conviction dated 23.05.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.10 of 2021, Mahipal Vs. Bilal Siddiqui, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was affirmed.
2. There has been a delay of 181 days for preferring this criminal revision. The reasons have been disclosed in the Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.2 of 2026.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents do not deny or dispute the averments made in the delay condonation application.
5. In view of the above, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. The criminal revision is to be treated within time.
6. There is also Exemption Application (IA) No.4 of 2026 for exempting the revisionist from surrendering in compliance of the impugned judgment and order. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the application for exempting the revisionist from surrendering is also allowed.
7. In the interaction with the respondent no.2, Mahipal Singh, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Ayush Saxena, Advocate, he has acknowledged entering into a compromise with the revisionist and receipt of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in full satisfaction of the cheque amount and that he does not wish to continue the case in future.
8. In view of the above, the compounding application is allowed. The opposite party no.2 and the revisionist are permitted to compound with the offence and the impugned judgment and order are hereby quashed.
9. The criminal revision is disposed of accordingly.
10. Urgency Application (IA) No.1 of 2026 also stands disposed of.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
Vacation Judge
03.02.2026 Sanjay
SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686df4 d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC450A8 4B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.02.03 17:29:22 +05'30'