ROHIT KUKREJA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.