Rohit Kukreja vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

There is a report, in which, it has been reported by the Registry that the date of order has wrongly been mentioned in the memo of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the revisionist seeks permission to correct the same. The said oral permission as sought for is granted. Learned counsel for the revisionist is permitted to make the necessary correction in the date as mentioned in the affidavit to be defective during the course of the day by endorsing the correct date. Thus, the defect as pointed out by the Registry is resolved and cured.

Before going into the Revision, it is necessary to deal with the initial proceedings, which was taken before this Court by the revisionist as he has earlier filed a C482 Application, being C482 Application No. 1345 of 2019, Rohit Kukreja Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, wherein, he has challenged the impugned judgment, i.e. the judgment dated 15th December, 2018, as rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 432 of 2015, Avtar Singh Vs. Rohit Kukreja, whereby, the revisionist has been convicted for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, consequently, he has been awarded a sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a penalty of Rs.5,26,000/- was imposed upon him. The said judgment rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in the aforesaid complaint case was confirmed by the judgment dated 20th July, 2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2019, Rohit Kukreja Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another.

Under the legal advice as extended to the revisionist, challenging the two orders as referred above, he had preferred the C482 Application No. 1345 of 2019, along with it, the parties have filed a Compounding Application No. 2011 of 2019 under the joint signature of both the parties invoking Section 320 of the Cr.P.C., wherein, the parties have jointly made a prayer that the Criminal Complaint Case No. 432 of 2015, Avtar Singh Vs. Rohit Kukreja, may be dropped in view of the settlement, which has been arrived at between the parties in view of the terms as it has been detailed in the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support thereto the compounding application.

The said Compounding Application, which constituted to be the part of the C-482 Application came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, dealing with the C-482 Application, and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide its order dated 29th July, 2019, held that as against the order of conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, as well as the appellate order, confirming the conviction, the C482 Application would not be tenable, consequently, the same was dismissed as not maintainable with liberty open to the revisionist to file a Revision against the impugned orders under challenge in C-482 Application.

In compliance to the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29th July, 2019, dismissing the C-482 Application as not maintainable, the present Revision has been filed.

A mention was made in the morning that the matter may be taken up because the Registry has reported that the matter to be defective on account of the fact that after the passing of the order of conviction by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court, the Revision is not accompanied with the detention certificate, hence, it was reported to be defective. On a mentioned being made to the said effect that since the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court in terms of the Compounding Application, which constituted to be the part of C-482 Application No. 1345 of 2019, the said Compounding Application could not be made as part of the record of the present Revision. Furthermore, since the matter has already been compounded between the parties, the counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the light of the settlement, which has been arrived at since the complainant himself was not interested in prosecuting the matter further in pursuance to the impugned order, there was no necessity for the revisionist to surrender and to annexed the detention certificate so as to make the Revision maintainable to be placed before the Court.

After accepting the mention, the Criminal Revision No.440 of 2019, and the record of C-482 Application No. 1345 of 2019 was also summoned and after going through the Compounding Application and the affidavit filed in support thereto by the complainant, it has been submitted that in view of the fact that they wanted to settle their score, their all disputes amicably, they have entered into a compromise and as a result thereto, the complainant has decided to withdraw his complaint and had decided not to prosecute it further in relation to the offence, which was complained of by him.

Considering the terms and conditions as referred in the affidavit filed by the revisionist and the private complainant/respondent and considering the fact that the affidavit, which has been filed along with Compounding Application is duly supported by the counsel for both the parties and a composite application for compounding has been filed by the counsel on behalf of the parties. Consequently, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose would be solved in case in pursuance to the impugned order, the revisionist is directed to surrender himself and procure a detention certificate in order to make his revision tenable. Hence, the said objection is overruled and considering the terms and conditions of the compounding application, which constituted to be part of the record of C-482 Application No. 1345 of 2019, which was summoned from the Registry, this Revision would stand closed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties and as a consequence thereto, the sentence as imposed against the revisionist by virtue of the impugned order dated 20th July, 2019 as rendered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, being in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2019, Shri Rohit Kukreja Vs. State of Uttarakhand as well as the judgment dated 15th December, 2018 as rendered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 432 of 2015, Avtar Singh Vs. Rohit Kukreja, convicting the revisionist for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, would stand quashed and the dispute as arising out of the complaint case as registered by the respondent is decided in terms of the settlement, which has been supported by the affidavit filed by the both the counsel under their joint signature.

However, this settlement made on the basis of the Compounding Application No. 2011 of 2019, will not have any effect or bearing so far it relates to the imposition of penalty to be paid to the State Government in pursuance to the impugned orders.

The revision stands disposed of accordingly.