Sundernagar vs Unknown
2021 Latest Caselaw 4168 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                        ON THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                                    BEFORE




                                                                .
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 275 of 2020

BETWEEN:-





    JAGDISH KUMAR, S/O SH.
    RAM DITTA, RESIDETN OF
    VILLAGE BAHOUR, P.O.
    KANAID, TEHSIL





    SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.                                                   ....PETITIONER

     (BY SH. G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE)

     AND

    SH. PARAM DEV, S/O
    SH.SURJAN RAM, RESIDENT
    OF VILLAGE BAHOUR, P.O.
    KANAID, TEHSIL


    SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT
    MANDI, H.P.                                               ....RESPONDENT
    (NONE)




    (RESPONDENT IN PERSON).





    Whether approved for reporting?





                 This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed
the following:
                                JUDGMENT

Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing judgment,

dated 10.9.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 73/2014,

whereby judgment/order dated 17.7.2014, passed by learned Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. I, Sundernagar, District Mandi, in

Cr. Complaint No. 161-1/2011, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-

accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo

simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of

`1,50,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.

2. Respondent/complainant is present in person in the Court

today. In his statement, recorded on oath, he has stated that matter has

been amicably settled and he has received full and final payment of

.

compensation amount and now nothing remains to be paid by petitioner

to him and has prayed for withdrawal of the complaint. He has further

stated that he has deposed out of his free will, consent and without any

fear, threat, coercion or pressure.

3. Petitioner/accused is present in the Court today and his

statement has also been recorded on oath, wherein he has endorsed

the amicable settlement. He has also stated that his deposition in the

Court is out of his free will, consent and without any external pressure,

coercion or threat of any kind.

4. Consequently, respondent/complainant is permitted to

withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising

out of dishonor of cheque, under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, is treated to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction

and sentence passed by the Courts below are quashed and set aside.

Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against him.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for exemption

of compounding fee on the ground that due to poor financial condition,

petitioner could not pay the amount well in time and now he has

arranged the money from his nears and dears and paid the same to

respondent. It is also submitted by him that considering the ratio of law

laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal

H. 2010 (5) SCC 663 as clarified by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh

State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain and another 2014

(10) SCC 690, a lenient view be taken and the petitioner be exempted

from payment of compounding fee.

6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,

.

petitioner/accused is exempted from payment of compounding fee.

7. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also

the pending application(s), if any.

Copy Dasti.

                                                   (Vivek Singh Thakur),
     th
25 August, 2021                                           Judge.
          (Keshav)