Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 339 (UTT)

Ratan Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-07-14

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. There is 67 days’ delay in filing the present revision. Delay in filing the revision has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the same is condoned. Let the criminal revision be admitted. Condonation of delay and admission of revision is not opposed by the respondents, inasmuch as, the parties have settled their dispute amicably. 2. Accused-revisionist was convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, vide order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the 2nd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Aggrieved against the same, the convict preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 76/2011, which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 04.02.2015. Aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Revision is preferred by the convict-revisionist. 3. A Compounding Application being CRMA No. 1050 of 2016 has been filed on behalf of the parties to indicate that they have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Compounding application is supported by the affidavits of the accused-revisionist and complainant/respondent no. 2. Abdul Khalik-victim is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Revisionist-Ratan Kumar is also present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Abdul Khalik says that he is not interested in prosecuting the revisionist, inasmuch as the dispute between them has been settled amicably. 4. The accused-revisionist says that he is ready to deposit 15 % of the cheque amount in the account of Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority, as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H., AIR 2010 SC 1907 . 5. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is - whether the complainant should be permitted to compound the offence proved against the revisionist or not? If so, on what terms? Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 6. If so, on what terms? Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Act shall be compoundable. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in G. Sivarajan vs Little Flower Kuries & Enterprises Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 400 , that when the claim is settled and the complainant says that he has no objection to compound the matter, the compounding should be permitted. It was also held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Anil Kumar Haritwal vs. Alka Gupta, (2004) 11 SCC 400 , that where dispute is settled between the parties, the conviction and sentence of the defaulter should be set aside in view of the fact that Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 permits compounding of the offence. 7. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) should be permitted to compound the offence against the revisionist. Compounding Application No. 1050 of 2016 is accordingly allowed. As a consequence thereof, the Criminal Revision is allowed, subject to deposition of 15 % of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority. Impugned Judgments and orders are hereby set aside. Conviction and sentence awarded to the convict-revisionist is also set aside, subject to the aforesaid condition. He is acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information and doing the needful.