Revisionist vs Pankaj Kukreja on 14 July, 2026

    0
    7
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Uttarakhand High Court

    Revisionist vs Pankaj Kukreja on 14 July, 2026

                                                              UKHC010120412026
    
    
    
                                                                      2026:UHC:5778
                  Office Notes,
                 reports, orders
                 or proceedings
    SL.
          Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
    No.
                 and Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
                                   CRLR/527/2026
    
                                   Rajeev Kukreja
                                                                   --Revisionist
                                                          Versus
                                   Pankaj Kukreja
                                                                 --Respondent
    
                                   Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
    

    Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for
    the revisionist.

    2. Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for
    respondent.

    SPONSORED

    3. Present criminal revision has been
    preferred assailing the judgment and order
    dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned
    1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh,
    District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal
    No.238 of 2022, whereby the appeal
    preferred by the revisionist was dismissed
    and the judgment and order dated
    16.09.2022 passed by the learned
    Additional Civil Judge/Judicial
    Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun
    in Criminal Complaint Case No.392 of
    2018 was affirmed. By the said judgment,
    the revisionist was convicted for the
    offence punishable under Section 138 of
    the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and
    sentenced to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for a period of one year and
    to pay a fine of ₹6,00,000/-, with a further
    direction that in default of payment of
    fine, he shall undergo simple
    imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

    4. There is a delay of 914 days in filing
    the present criminal revision. An
    application seeking condonation of delay,
    UKHC010120412026

    2026:UHC:5778
    supported by an affidavit, has been filed.

    5. Cause shown in the delay
    condonation application is found to be
    sufficient. Accordingly, the delay of 914
    days in filing the present criminal revision
    is condoned. The delay condonation
    application stands allowed.

    6. Learned counsel for the revisionist
    would submit that the revisionist and the
    respondent are real brothers. It is
    submitted that an arrangement had been
    arrived at between the respondent and
    their late father regarding the business of
    a shop, pursuant to which an agreement
    was executed; that, owing to certain
    disputes relating to the implementation of
    the said agreement, the revisionist issued
    certain cheques in favour of the
    respondent; that, upon presentation, the
    said cheques were dishonoured by the
    bank with the endorsement ‘exceeds
    arrangement’; that, thereafter, a statutory
    demand notice was issued to the
    revisionist; that, since the cheque amount
    was not paid within the prescribed period,
    the respondent instituted a complaint
    under Section 138 of the Negotiable
    Instruments Act; that, the learned Trial
    Court convicted the revisionist and the
    appeal preferred there against also came
    to be dismissed.

    7. Learned counsel for the revisionist
    would further submit that during the
    pendency of the present revision, the
    parties have amicably resolved all their
    disputes. In this regard, a Compounding
    Application being I.A. No.3 of 2026, duly
    supported by separate affidavits sworn by
    the revisionist as well as the respondent,
    has been filed before this Court. It is
    submitted that the compromise has been
    entered into voluntarily, without any
    coercion, undue influence or pressure,
    UKHC010120412026

    2026:UHC:5778
    and that both parties have prayed that the
    offence be compounded in terms of
    Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments
    Act, 1881.

    8. Learned counsel appearing for the
    respondent fairly submits that the dispute
    between the parties has been amicably
    settled and that the respondent has no
    objection if the offence under Section 138
    of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
    permitted to be compounded and the
    judgments of conviction and sentence
    passed by the courts below are set aside.

    9. The revisionist as well as the
    respondent are present before this Court
    through Video Conferencing and have
    been duly identified by their respective
    learned counsel. Upon being interacted
    with by the Court, both parties have
    affirmed that the compromise has been
    entered into voluntarily, out of their own
    free will and without any coercion,
    inducement or undue influence. The
    respondent has further stated that he has
    no objection if the offence is compounded
    and the conviction of the revisionist is set
    aside.

    10. Heard learned counsel for the parties
    and perused the material available on
    record.

    11. It is well settled that by virtue of
    Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments
    Act, 1881, every offence punishable under
    the Act is compoundable notwithstanding
    anything contained in the Code of
    Criminal Procedure
    . The Hon’ble Supreme
    Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed
    Babalal H.
    , (2010) 5 SCC 663, and M.P.
    State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek
    Jain
    , (2014) 10 SCC 690, has held that
    offences under Section 138 of the
    Negotiable Instruments Act can be
    UKHC010120412026

    2026:UHC:5778
    compounded even at the appellate or
    revisional stage, subject to appropriate
    terms.

    12. Considering the nature of the
    offence, the amicable settlement arrived at
    between the parties, the voluntary
    statements made before this Court, and
    the fact that the offence under Section 138
    of the Negotiable Instruments Act is
    compoundable under Section 147 of the
    Act, this Court is of the opinion that the
    Compounding Application deserves to be
    allowed.

    13. Accordingly, the Compounding
    Application (I.A. No.3 of 2026) is allowed.
    The offence punishable under Section 138
    of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands
    compounded under Section 147 of the
    Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
    Consequently, the judgment and order
    dated 10.10.2023 passed by the learned
    1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh,
    District Dehradun in Criminal Appeal
    No.238 of 2022 as well as the judgment
    and order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the
    learned Additional Civil Judge/Judicial
    Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun
    in Criminal Complaint Case No.392 of
    2018 are hereby set aside. The revisionist
    is acquitted of the charge under Section
    138
    of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

    14. The criminal revision is, accordingly,
    allowed.

    15. Pending applications, if any, also
    stand disposed of.

    
    
            MAMTA
                                                                (Alok Mahra, J.)
    Mamta   RANI                                                   14.07.2026
    
            Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
    

    DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
    ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
    2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef9
    00bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
    st=Uttarakhand,
    serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911c
    a8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
    RANI
    Date: 2026.07.14 17:16:08 +05’30’



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here