Ashok Batla vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

The complainant (respondent No. 2 - Mr. Devendra Singh) is present in person before this Court. As far as the revisionist is concerned, since after the orders of conviction as rendered by learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 3364 of 2010, Devendra Singh v. Asholk Batla by the judgement dated 4th January 2013, and later on which had been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court judgement dated 11th June 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2013, Ashok Batla v. Devendra Singh & another, the revisionist has surrendered himself and he has been taken in custody so as to serve the sentence as has been inflicted on him in pursuance to the judgements impugned in the present criminal revision.

The criminal revision has been preferred as against the aforesaid two judgements, which were arising out of the complaint case proceedings which was initiated by the complainant/respondent No. 2, who is present in person before this Court who is identified by his counsel, contending thereof that for the purposes of purchasing of a property, he has extended a financial assistance to the revisionist to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand only), which ought to have been returned by the revisionist within the specified time period. But, on account of the failure on the part of revisionist to refund back the said money to the complainant/respondent No. 2, he has issued with the notices under Negotiable Instrument Act and consequently he had lodged a complaint case against the revisionist before the trial Court, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 3364 of 2010, Devendra Singh v. Asholk Batla.

The Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar by the impugned judgement dated 4th January 2013, had convicted the revisionist and had directed him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months and a penalty of Rs. 1000/- was imposed upon him. Simultaneously, he was also directed to pay an amount as referred in the cheque, which was dishonoured by the bank to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Thousand Only) along with a sum of Rs. 10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), which was to be deposited in the Court as an amount due to be paid under Section 457 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The said judgement dated 4th January 2013, convicting the revisionist, an Appeal was preferred by the revisionist and the learned Appellate Court too vide its judgement dated 11th June 2018, as rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2013, Ashok Batla v. Devendra Singh & another had affirmed the judgement rendered by the learned trial Court and consequent thereto, the sentence, which was imposed upon him by the impugned judgement in Appeal was affirmed.

The revisionist has preferred this Criminal Revision along with the Delay Condensation Application No. 1609 of 2019, as it has been reported by the Registry that the revision has been preferred with a delay of 288 days. The reason which has been assigned by the revisionist in the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the revision is to the effect that his mother who is of 90 years of age has met with an accident due to which she seriously fell ill and her elbow got fractured. Apart from that, he has submitted that the delay has been chanced on account of the fact that he has an aged mother, who, as stated is about 90 years of age and she too because of her elbow got fractured and the ailment, she was undergone the treatment due to which she remained hospitalized for a period of 6 months.

The aforesaid reason has resulted into the delayed filing of the present revision. In support of his contention pertaining to the ailment, the revisionist has annexed the documents pertaining to the treatment of his mother, consequently, considering the documents filed in support thereto, this Court being satisfied with the reasons which have been assigned in the delay condonation application and also considering the fact that since the revision is being listed along with a Compounding Application No. 1610 of 2019, which has been jointly signed by both the parties, the delay condonation application since it is not being seriously opposed by the respondent, the same would stand condoned and the Delay Condonation Application Would stand allowed.

After having considered the Compounding Application, as preferred by the revisionist by invoking Section 320 Cr.P.C. the parties after referring to the entire controversy as to how it germinated and now it has reached to the stage of rendering of the impugned judgement of conviction under challenge in the revision, it has been mentioned by the parties to the dispute that considering the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgements that where the parties to the dispute have amicably settled there scores outside the Court based on the settlement and which is a fact which stand fortified by admission made in the statement which has been made by the complainant (respondent No. 2), who is present before this Court, who has been identified by his counsel that the dispute between him and the revisionist has now been settled and since being a complaint case that the dispute has now been settled-down, the Compounding Application deserves to be allowed in view of the fact that the nature of offence, which has been complaint is not a complaint which in case if it is permitted to be compounded will be sending a wrong message to the public at large. Furthermore, since it is an offence in relation to the provisions contained under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, which is not a public offence, as it's only an offence vis-a-vis as against the two rival parties to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act.

Considering the effect of the compounding application, which has been duly signed by the parties, considering the statements which has been made by the respective counsel of the revisionist, as well as, that of the counsel for respondent No. 2 i.e. the complainant, and having interacted with the complainant, this Court is of the view that since the dispute arising out of the complaint under Section 138 has now been settled between the parties as it would be apparent from the contents of the Compounding Application, this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allows the Compounding Application and as a consequences to the composition of the offence, the impugned judgements of conviction dated 4th January 2013 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Complaint Case No. 3364 of 2010, Devendra Singh v. Ashok Batla and its subsequent affirmation by the judgement dated 11th June 2018 in an Appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 2013, Ashok Batla v. Devendra Singh & another as rendered by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the same would stand quashed in terms of the settlement, which has been arrived at between the parties. Consequently this criminal revision is allowed and the order of conviction is set aside.

As a consequence of the setting aside the orders of conviction, the revisionist is directed to be released from the custody.