Arun Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The revisionist and the complainant (respondent No. 2) are present before this Court, and they have been duly identified by their respective counsels. The revisionist is a convict for the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was registered against him by way of Criminal Case No. 65 of 2016, Amar Singh v. Arun Kumar, which stood adjudicated on 29.10.2018, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar District Nainital, thereby convicting the revisionist to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months with penalty of Rs. 1,35,000/- has been imposed upon him, out of which Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be remitted to the State Exchequer.

A challenge was given to the said judgement of conviction dated 29.10.2018, by the revisionist in a Criminal Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2018, Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, the same was yet again adjudicated by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar, District Nainital and the said Criminal Appeal was dismissed, consequently affirming the judgement of conviction by its order dated 20.09.2019.

Today, the criminal revision, which is giving challenge to the aforesaid judgement of conviction is listed along with a Compounding Application (CRMA No. 3895 of 2019), contending thereof that the parties to the dispute have settled their controversy outside the Court and it has also being argued that the said application falls to be within the ambit of the provisions contained under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which itself contemplates and provides for the composition of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. The parties, who are appearing in person before this Court have been identified by their respective counsels, they have made a statement and particularly the statement as made by the complainant/respondent No. 2, that he has already received the entire amount due under the said judgement and hence he makes a statement that the does not want to pursue his complaint anymore, and the adjudication made thereto by the impugned order under challenge because his grievance as of now stands mitigated by the receipt of the amount due to be paid by the revisionist to him. As a consequence thereto, in view of the terms of the agreement which has been duly signed by both the parties and their respective counsels, and also considering the statements recorded by the complainant/respondent who is present in person, that he has received the entire amount due to be paid to him by the revisionist, the present Criminal Revision stands allowed. The impugned orders of conviction dated 29.10.2018, as rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ramnagar District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 65 of 2016, Amar Singh v. Arun Kumar, as well as the judgement dated 20.09.2019, as rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar District Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2018, Arun Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, would stand quashed, and as a consequence thereto the revision stands allowed.

However, the allowing of this Criminal Revision will not preclude or exonerate the revisionist's liability to pay the amount of penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, which he has been otherwise directed by the impugned order to be deposited in the treasurer of State. This judgement will only come into effect subject to the condition that the revisionist deposits the amount of Rs. 5,000/-, if not already paid, before the Treasury of the State in furtherance of the direction issued by the impugned orders, which has already been set aside.

Subject to the above observation, the present Criminal Revision stands allowed. The Compounding Application, as filed by the parties to the criminal revision is hereby allowed accordingly.