Uttarakhand High Court
CRLR/376/2021 on 7 December, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
Date
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
CRLR No.376 of 2021
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Mr. K. K. Harbola, learned counsel for the
revisionist.
Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned B. H. for the State.
Mr. Deepak Joshi, learned counsel for
respondent no. 2.
This revision is preferred against the
judgment and order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the
Additional CJM, Ram Nagar, District Nainital in
Criminal Case No.564 of 2015 "Najakat Ali vs.
Laxman Singh as well as the order dated 10.03.2021
passed by Additional Session Judge, Ram Nagar,
District Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.58 of 2020
"Laxman Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand & another.
Compounding application (IA 3/21) has been
moved to compound the offence; the complainant
Najakat Ali is present before the Court; he fairly
submitted that he has received all the amount from
the revisionist (Laxman Singh); he does not want to
pursue the revision; the compounding application is
supported by an affidavit and duly verified by the
respective counsels; the revisionist has already
deposited 15% of the cheque amount before the
SLSA; he produced the slip before the Court.
In Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H.,
Criminal Appeal No.963 of 2010 (arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 6369 of 2007) with Criminal Appeal
Nos. 964-966 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Nos. 6370-6372 of 2007), the Apex Court has
permitted compounding of offence between the
parties for the cases falling under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act with certain riders. For
the sake of convenience, relevant portion of the said
judgment is quoted hereinbelow: -
""With regard to the progression of litigation in
cheque bouncing cases, the learned Attorney General has
urged this Court to frame guidelines for a graded scheme of
imposing costs on parties who unduly delay compounding of
the offence. It was submitted that the requirement of deposit
of the costs will act as a deterrent for delayed composition,
since at present, free and easy compounding of offences at
any stage, however belated, gives an incentive to the drawer
of the cheque to delay settling the cases for years. An
application for compounding made after several years not
only results in the system being burdened but the
complainant is also deprived of effective justice. In view of
this submission, we direct that the following guidelines be
followed:
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the writ of
summons be suitably modified making it clear to
the accused that he could make an application for
compounding may be allowed by the Court
without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for
compounding as aforesaid, then if an application
for compounding is made before the Magistrate
at a subsequent stage, compounding can be
allowed of the cheque amount to be deposited as
a condition for compounding with the Legal
Services Authority, or such authority as the court
deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is
made before the Sessions Court of a High Court
in revision or appeal, such compounding may be
allowed on the condition that the accused pays
15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is
made before the Supreme Court, the figure would
increase to 20% of the cheque amount."
In the light of abovementioned case, the
revision is allowed. The judgments and orders,
under challenge, are quashed and set aside.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of accordingly.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.)
07.12.2021
R.Bisht
