Manali District Kullu vs Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) Scc 663 As ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5543 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                       ON THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                                     BEFORE




                                                                  .
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





                       CRIMINAL REVISION No. 252 OF 2018





BETWEEN:-

    JOGINDER SINGH SON OF SH.
    SHONU RAM R/O VILLAGE
    RAUGI, P.O. KARADSU, TEHSIL





    MANALI DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.                                     ....PETITIONER

    (BY SH. NAVEEN K. BHARDWAJ, ADVOCATE)
    AND


    RAM SARAN SON OF SH.GUPT
    RAM R/O VILLAGE RAMPUR,
    P.O. BRAN TEHSIL MANALI,                                    ....RESPONDENT
    DISTRICT KULLU HP.



    (BY SH.MAAN SINGH, ADVOCATE).

    Whether approved for reporting?




                 This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court delivered





the following:
                                 JUDGMENT

Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing judgment,

dated 30.5.2018, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in

Criminal Appeal No35 of 2017, whereby judgment/order dated

29.3.2017/30.3.2017, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class,

Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Case No. 360-1/2012//25-

III/2017, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple imprisonment for

six months and to pay compensation of `1,25,000/- to the complainant,

has been affirmed.

2. Petitioner/accused Joginder Singh is present in the Court

today and his statement has been recorded on oath, wherein he has

stated that the Court has awarded compensation to the tune of

.

`1,25,000/- payable by him to respondent/complainant Ram Saran, but

due to paucity of funds and poor financial condition, he could not pay the

amount in time and considering his financial condition, respondent has

agreed to compound the case by accepting the amount deposited by

him in the Court plus `40,000/-, instead of `1,25,000/-. He has stated

that in the trial Court, he has deposited `62,500/-, whereas `40,000/-

has been paid by him in cash to respondent, who has agreed to

withdraw the complaint for compounding the case. He has also prayed

for compounding the case by exempting him from paying compounding

fee keeping in view his poor financial condition. Lastly, he has stated

that he has deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and also

without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

3. Respondent /complainant Ram Saran, in his statement,

while endorsing the statement made by petitioner to be true and correct,

has stated that as per compromise amount deposited by the petitioner in

the trial court is to be released in his favour by remitting the same in his

bank account No. 2134000100020191, IFSC Code: PUNB0213400,

Punjab National Bank, Kalath, Himachal Pradesh and has prayed for

withdrawal of complaint for compounding the case. He has further

stated that he has deposed in this Court out of his free will, consent and

also without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

4. Consequently, respondent No. 1/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 is not in a

position to pay the compounding fee. 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 and ratio of

law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, petitioner/accused

is exempted from payment of compounding fee.

7. As an amount of `62,500/- has been deposited by petitioner

in the trial Court, therefore, the Trial Court is directed to release the

amount of compensation of `62,500/-, deposited by the

petitioner/accused in favour of respondent/complainant Ram Saran,

along with interest, if any accrued thereon, without issuing notice to the

accused-petitioner (Joginder Singh) by remitting the same in his bank

account No. 2134000100020191, IFSC Code: PUNB0213400, Punjab

National Bank, Kalath, Himachal Pradesh, on production of copy of this

order in the trial Court.

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

the pending application(s), if any.

9. Parties are permitted to use downloaded copy from the High

.

Court website and concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy.

Passing of order may be verified from High Court website.

Copy Dasti.

                                            (Vivek Singh Thakur),





 nd
2     December, 2021                               Judge.
         (Keshav)