CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajnish Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor Agarwal Computers vs Sri Mahendra Pal Singh Partner Sant Sales

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 11 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 05 UK CK 0135

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Application (C-482) No. 407 of 2011
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 352 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.

2.

By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the Petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 13 of 2009; Mahendra Pal Singh v. Rajnish Kumar Agarwal, relating to offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of IV Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The Petitioner has further challenged the order dated 19.04.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2011, whereby the order dated 01.03.2011, passed by the trial court, is affirmed.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a criminal complaint before the trial court relating to offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the present Petitioner. It appears that a compounding application was moved by the Petitioner (accused) keeping in mind the spirit contained in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Syed Baba Lal H 2010 Legal Eagle 89 (SC). The papers on record further reveal that the complainant did not verify the terms on which the compromise was offered by the accused. Since, compromise was not verified by the complainant, the trial court rejected the application, moved by the accused for compounding of the offence, vide its order dated 01.03.2011. Said order was challenged by the Petitioner before the revisional court, which was also dismissed.

4.

Admittedly, the complainant has not agreed to the compromise offered by the accused, as such, the trial court had no option but to reject the application of compounding. It is for the complainant to agree for compromise with the accused. The trial court or the revisional court could not have compelled the complainant to compromise in terms offered by the accused.

5.

In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the trial court or by the revisional court.

6.

Therefore, the petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is dismissed, without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, pending before the trial court.