Anand Singh Tomar vs State of Uttarakhand

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)—Accused-revisionist was convicted under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, vide order dated 06.6.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. Aggrieved against the same, the convict preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 68/2015, which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, vide order dated 18.5.2016. The order dated 06.6.2015 passed by learned Trial Court was affirmed. In other words, the conviction and sentence awarded to the convict was upheld. Still aggrieved against the same, present Criminal Revision is preferred by the convict-revisionist.

A Compounding Application being CRMA No. 877 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 revisionist/accused and complainant/respondent no. 2. Complainant Ashish Gupta is present in person before the Court, duly identified by his counsel Ms. Lata Negi, Advocate. He says that he is not interested in prosecuting the revisionist. Revisionist-Anand Singh Tomar is also present in person before this Court, duly identified by his counsel Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate.

The accused-revisionist says that he is ready to deposit 15 % of 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.

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.

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.

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 revisionist. Compounding Application No. 877 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 within a month. The Judgment and order 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.