Lakhan Pal vs Shyam Lal Chauhan And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2746 HP

                                                 1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                        SHIMLA




                                                                             .
                                   Cr. Revision No.93 of 2021





                                   Decided on : _27th April, 2021
                                                                   ___________________





    Lakhan Pal                                                     ...Petitioner.
                                   Versus

    Shyam Lal Chauhan and another                                  ...Respondents.
                                                                                __________





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No.

    For the petitioner     :
                            r     Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate.

    For the respondent    :       Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Advocate, for Respondent
                                  No.1.

                                  Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for


                                  Respondent No.2/State.


         PROCEEDIGNS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE




    Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral)

Challenging the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, in Criminal Appeal No. 97-Cr.A/10 of 2011, titled as

Lakhan Pal vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan and another dated 20.7.2013, whereby the first Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP in Cr. Comp. No.113/3 of 2005, dated 31.3.2011, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act), the petitioner has come up in this Court for

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

.

2. Learned counsel for the parties, state that the matter stands compromised between

the parties. Learned counsel for the parties also acknowledge the payment and receipt of Demand Draft No.243434 dated 27.4.2021 amounting to Rs.50,000/- and Demand Draft No.243436 dated 27.4.2021 amounting to Rs.1,30,000/- (total Rs.1,80,000/-) and

pray that the judgments of conviction be quashed and set aside. To this effect, statement of learned counsel has also been recorded. The said statement forms part of the record.

REASONING:

3. The jurisprudence behind the N.I. Act is that the business transactions are honored. The legislative intention is not to send the people to suffer incarceration

because their cheque was bounced. These proceedings are to execute the recovery of

cheque amount by showing teeth of penalty loss.

4. In Kaushalya Devi Massand v Roopkishore Khore, (2011) 4 SCC 593, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

[11]. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the gravity of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be equated with an

offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or other criminal offences. An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is almost in the nature of a

civil wrong which has been given criminal overtones. [12]. The learned Magistrate, in his wisdom was of the view that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the

Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. Except having regard to the submission made that the Appellant/ complainant, is a widowed lady of advanced age, there is no other special circumstance which calls for interference with the order of the learned Magistrate, as confirmed by the High Court, with an increased fine. [13]. After an interval of 14 years, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in the appeal, except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of ` 2 lakhs. The said amount of ` 2 lakhs in addition to the sum of ` 6 lakhs already directed to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant, shall be deposited in the Trial Court within two weeks from date and

upon such deposit being made, the Appellant will be at liberty to withdraw the same by way of compensation, together with the amounts already deposited, if not already withdrawn. In default of such deposit, the Appellant shall undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

.

5. Given the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu v Sayed Babalal, (2010) 5 SCC 663, the law is well settled that when the

entire money is paid, then the complainant cannot have any objection to such compromise, and 15% of the cheque amount is to be paid by the accused to the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority.

6. This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further supported by Section 147 of the N.I. Act to interfere in this kind of matter where parties have paid the entire money and where the complainant does not

object to clear all the proceedings. Given the entirety of the case and judicial precedents,

I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever.

7. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that because of the compromise, this is

a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is invoked to

compound the offence and consequently to quash the proceedings mentioned above.

8. In Shakuntala Sawhney v Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at p 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the finest hour of Justice arise propitiously when

parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion.

9. Consequently, given the compounding of offences, the proceedings are quashed. Accordingly, the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

10. The amount of cheque in question was Rs. Thirty thousand. As such, the accused is to pay compensation at the rate of 15%, which comes out to be Rs. 4,500/-. The petitioner shall deposit aforesaid amount in the account of the concerned HP Legal Aid

Authority, on or before 30 June 2021, failing which this entire order, including compounding, shall automatically stand recalled, and this petition shall be posted for hearing on merits. However, in extraordinary circumstances, the petitioner may

.

approach this Court for an extension of time to deposit the compounding fee. Petitioner

to file the receipt in the Registry.

11. Based on the compromise, the petitioner makes out a case for closure of the

petition. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, in Criminal Appeal No. 97-Cr.A/10 of 2011, titled as Lakhan Pal vs. Shyam Lal Chauhan and another dated 20.7.2013, whereby the first

Appellate Court had affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, HP in Cr. Comp. No.113/3 of 2005, dated 31.3.2011, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are quashed and set aside alongwith all consequential proceedings.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.

Copy Dasti.

(Anoop Chitkara),

Judge.

April 27, 2021 (KS)