Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 05.08.202 vs State Of H.P. & Another on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2021
Date of Decision: 05.08.2021
______________________________________________________________________
Jai Singh ....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of H.P. & another .....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocates.
For the respondent: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Mr. Sumesh Raj,
Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates
r General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria,
Mr.Kamal Kant Chandel, Deputy
Advocates General, for respondent
No.1.
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.2, through Video
Conferencing.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged judgment, dated 28.05.2014, passed by the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar, District
Mandi, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 116-1of 2013/68-III of 2013,
titled as Himachal Gramin Bank, Sundernagar Versus Jai Singh, which
criminal case stood disposed of by the learned Trial Court by sentencing
the present petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
.
year and also to pay Rs.84,000/- as compensation to the complainant
as well as judgment dated 09.11.2020, passed by the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., vide
which, the judgment passed by 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 in view of
said development, it will be in the interest 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 5% 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 six 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.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
August 05, 2021
(rishi)
