Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/528/2026 of RAJEEV KUKREJA Vs PANKAJ KUKREJA on 14 July 2026

Cites 2, Cited by 0

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR/528/2026 Rajeev Kukreja --Revisionist Versus Pankaj Kukreja --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

2

Decisions referred to

In this index

2

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

CRLR/528/2026

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.

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.75 of 2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the revisionist was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No.520 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 three months and to pay a fine of ₹13,70,000/-, 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, 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, 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 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.75 of 2022 as well as the judgment and order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No.520 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.

(Alok Mahra, J.)

14.07.2026 Mamta

MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46 f244f3e584af1449e430ef90 0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132 9b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.14 17:16:53 +05'30'

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead