Gurindra Singh vs Anil Kumar

Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J.—The revisionist was convicted u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was sentenced appropriately, vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 passed by J.M., Roorkee. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the convict preferred a criminal appeal No. 116/2010, which was dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 24.01.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge,/2nd F.T.C., Haridwar. Still aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision is filed before this Court.

A Compounding Application (CRMA No. 604/2014) is filed before this Court to show that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Anil Kumar-complainant is present in person, duly identified by his counsel Ms. Lata Negi. The revisionist is represented by his wife, i.e., Irvinder Kaur, duly identified by her counsel Mr. A.V. Pundir. Affidavits have been filed by the complainant and the wife of revisionist that the parties have settled their disputes amicably. Complainant (Anil Kumar) stated before this Court that he has no grievance left against the revisionist. The complainant stated that he has no objection, if the sentence and fine awarded to the revisionist is set aside, since the matter has been settled amicably.

According to Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the offences punishable under the Act are compoundable. Since the complainant has buried all his differences against the revisionist, therefore, he should be permitted to compound such offence against the revisionist in the interest of justice.

Compounding Application (CRMA No. 604/2014) is allowed in the interest of justice. As a consequence thereof, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and orders dated 20.09.2010 and 24.01.2012 passed by J.M., Roorkee and Addl. Sessions Judge/2nd FTC, Haridwar respectively are set-aside.