C482/434/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 685 UK

                   Office Notes,
                reports, orders or
                 proceedings or
Sl. No   Date                                   COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                  directions and
                Registrar's order
                 with Signatures
                                     C482 No.434 of 2023
                                     Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. Sachin Panwar, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Pranav Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

The accused applicant Shri Ajay Goel, is present in person, who has been identified by the learned counsel for the applicant. The complainant/respondent no.2, is too present in person, who has been identified by the respondent counsel. Since being a complaint proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, respondent no.1, i.e. State would not have any role as such.

In the C482 application, in fact the challenge, which has been given by the applicant is to the judgment dated 07.12.2022, as it was rendered in Complaint Case No.878 of 2013, "Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Ajay Goel", which stood decided in favour of the complainant, whereby the judgment of the conviction, was rendered as against the present applicant directing him to undergo four months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,50,000/- has been imposed. The judgment of 21.12.2013, stood affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2014, which was decided by the judgment dated 07.12.2022.

The C482 application is accompanied with the compounding application, and particularly, we would be concerned with the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the compounding application contending thereof, that the issue between them has now been resolved, as all money, which was due to be paid to him has already been received by the complainant, as such, the respondent no.2, has made a statement before this Court, in the presence of the respective counsels, that he does not intends to enforce the judgment of conviction as against the present applicant.

Since it is a complaint case, which is absolutely a private dispute and since the same has been settled between the parties, the execution of the same would not be required, once the liability which has been fastened upon, the applicant has already been admittedly remitted to the respondent no.2.

Since the facts stated by the complainant stands fortified by the compounding application, which has been supported by the respective affidavits filed by the applicant and the respondent no.2, the C482 application would stands allowed, and as a result thereto the concurrent judgments of the conviction dated 07.12.2022 and 21.12.2013, would hereby stand quashed, and the entire proceedings of the Complaint Case No.878 of 2013, "Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Ajay Goel", would hereby stands quashed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 18.03.2023 NR/