Mahender vs Charanjit Singh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3525 HP

                                          1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                                            .
                                                  Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2021





                              Date of Decision: 04.08.2021
______________________________________________________________________





Mahender                                              ....Petitioner.
                              Vs.

Charanjit Singh                                                                         .....Respondent.





Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.


For the petitioner:                               Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondent:                               Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate.

                                                  Petitioner is present in person.



Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):

By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has

challenged judgment, dated 10.07.2019, passed by the Court of learned

Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 4, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 79­3

of 2019/15, titled as Charanjit Singh Vs. Mahender, which criminal case

stood disposed of by the learned Trial Court by sentencing the present

petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months

and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/­ as compensation to the complainant as

well as judgment dated 29.10.2020, passed by the Court of learned

Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., vide which, the judgment passed by 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

learned Trial Court was upheld by the learned Appellate Court and the

.

appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment passed by

learned Trial Court was dismissed.

2. The Court stands informed that during the pendency of

the revision petition, the matter has been amicably settled between the

petitioner and the respondent and the entire due amount stands paid by

the petitioner to the respondent. This fact is not disputed by learned

counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view

of said development, it will be in the interest of justice in case this Court

exercises its power of compounding the offence in terms of the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed

Babalal H. (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 663. He further submits that

as the petitioner has made good the amount due to the respondent, it will

be in the interest of justice, in case in terms of para 25 of the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (supra), the compounding fee of 15% of

the cheque amount is modified taking into consideration the peculiar facts

of the case and the financial condition of the petitioner. He assures the

Court that in case the offence is compounded by this Court, then the

compounding fee shall be paid by the petitioner within the time so granted

by the Court.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

.

taking into consideration the fact that the matter which led to filing of the

criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, now

stands settled between the parties, this Court orders the compounding of

the offence in question, subject to the payment of 15% of the cheque

amount as compounding fee by the petitioner, which shall be deposited by

the petitioner with State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within a period

of eight weeks from today. Let a compliance affidavit in this regard be

thereafter filed by the petitioner with the Registrar (Judicial).

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also

pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Copy dasti.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge August 04, 2021

(bhupender)