Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3095 of 2018 Revisionist :- Sultan Ahmad Mirza Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ramesh Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Chandra Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and Mr. Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018 (Sultan Ahmad Mirza vs. State of U.P. & Another), whereby the appellate court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 1178 of 2016 (Pradeep Singh vs. Sultan Ahmad), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Biharigardh, District Saharanpur.
The trial court by means of the aforesaid judgment and order convicted the revisionist under Section 138 N.I. Act and consequently sentenced him to undergo six months imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1 lac. Upon failure to deposit the amount of fine so imposed, the revisionist was to further undergo detention for a period of one month. Out of the amount of fine so imposed a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was to be paid to the complainant-opposite party no.2 as compensation. Any amount deposited prior to the passing of the order dated 5th April, 2018 was to be adjusted in the amount payable by the revisionist to the complainant- opposite party no.2.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that during the pendency of the above mentioned criminal appeal, the parties have entered into a compromise but since on the date of filing of the compromise application, the matter was posted for delivery of judgment, the compromise application was not entertained and the judgment was pronounced by the appellate court. Mr. Ramesh Chandra Srivastava, the learned counsel for the revisionist, however, invited the attention of the Court to the compromise application filed before the court below, which is on the record at page 89 of the paper book. The said compromise application contains a categorical recital that the payment payable under the disputed cheque by the revisionist to the complainant-opposite party no.2 has been paid. On the aforesaid factual premise, he submits that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 147 N.I. Act, the proceedings under the N.I. Act are compoundable at any stage. He, therefore, submits that the present criminal revision be decided in terms of the aforesaid facts.
A compromise application with joint affidavit of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 has been filed today in the Court, wherein the factum of the compromise so entered into between the parties outside the Court has been duly stated. Both the parties agreed that the proceedings of the above mentioned case giving rise to the present criminal revision may be quashed as the liability arising under the disputed cheque stands satisfied.
Admittedly, the dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute and compoundable at any stage of the proceedings by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 147 N.I. Act. It is also an undisputed fact that the amount payable under the disputed cheque has been paid by the revisionist to the complainant-opposite party no.2. Therefore, the continuation of the present criminal revision willy only result in wastage of public time and money.
Having considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the present criminal revision.
This Court is not unmindful of the following judgements of the Apex Court:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and Another; (2003)4 SCC 675,
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation; (2008) 9 SCC 677,
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and Others; (2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab; (2012); 10 SCC 303,
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab;
( 2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another; 2013 (83) ACC 278. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of the present criminal revision as the parties have already settled their dispute.
Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Saharanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2018 (Sultan Ahmad Mirza vs. State of U.P. & Another) as well as the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2018 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court, Saharanpur in Complaint Case No. 1178 of 2016 (Pradeep Singh vs. Sultan Ahmad), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Biharigardh, District Saharanpur are hereby quashed.
The present criminal revision is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Sushil/-