Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 314 (UTT)

Surendra v. Narendra Singh

2017-06-09

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 18.04.2017 passed in Appeal No. 01 of 2017, Surendra v. Narendra, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi, as well as the order dated 07.09.2015 passed by Magistrate, Uttarkashi in Criminal Case No. 150 of 2015, Narendra v. Surrendra, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. A compromise application being CRMA No. 948 of 2017 has been filed with the prayer that the parties have buried their differences and have settled their disputes amicably. Compounding application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant and complainant. Complainant Narendra Singh is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Mr. Mukesh Rawat, Advocate. He says that he is in receipt of the sum due, which has been paid by the applicant to him. He also says that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicant. All that he prays is that, since a compounding has taken place between him and the applicant, therefore, the order directing conviction and sentence to the applicant be set aside. Applicant Surendra is also present in person duly identified by his counsel Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate. The applicant affirms in the open Court what is stated by the complainant Narendra Singh. 3. In response to a query of the Court, learned counsel for the applicant, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and others, reported in 1995 (4) SCC 41 , submitted that this C-482 Petition is maintainable, apart from Criminal Revision. As an exceptional case, this Court is entertaining present C-482 Petition. 4. The accused-applicant says that he is ready to deposit 15 % the cheque amount in the account of Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, as per the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. 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 v. 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 v. 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 herein) should be permitted to compound the offence against the applicant. Compounding Application No. 948 of 2017 is accordingly allowed. As a consequence thereof, the C-482 Petition is allowed, subject to deposition of 15 % of the cheque amount with the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority within a month. The Judgment and order under challenge 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. The revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. 8. Let a copy of this order along with Lower Court Records be sent to the Court below for compliance.