Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jai Singh vs Post Office Shallang on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 216 OF 2012
Between:-
JAI SINGH
SON OF CHANDE RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUPKAN,
Post Office BHUTTI,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT, KULLU,
H.P.
PETITIONER
(BY MR. AJAY CHANDEL,
ADVOCATE)
AND
DABE RAM
SON OF UTTAM RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND
POST OFFICE SHALLANG
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P.
RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SANJAY BHARDWAJ,
ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting:
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss. 397/401
CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 1.9.2012 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 35
/2012, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
9.5.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahul and Spiti at
Kullu in Cr. Complaint No. 721/1 of 2009, 13/3 of 2010, whereby learned
trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter 'accused')
guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), convicted and sentenced
.
him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and pay
compensation of Rs.2.20 Lakh to the respondent-complainant
(hereinafter, 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are
that the respondent complainant instituted a complaint under S. 138 of the
Act in the competent court of law, alleging therein that the accused, with a
view to discharge his liability, issued cheque bearing No. 81916 dated
30.9.2009 in the sum of Rs. 2.00 Lakh, in favour of the complainant, but
the facts remains that the said cheque, on its presentation, was
dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds". Since despite having
received legal notice served by the complainant, accused failed to make
good the payment within the time stipulated in the legal notice,
complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S.138 of the
Act in the competent Court of law.
3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record
by respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence
punishable under S.138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and
sentenced as per the description given herein above.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction
and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court, accused preferred
an appeal before Sessions Judge, Kullu, which came to be dismissed vide
judgment dated 1.9.2012. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has
approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his
acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence
recorded by learned courts below.
5. Vide order dated 2.11.2012, this court, suspended the
substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial Court
.
subject to depositing of entire amount of compensation by the accused.
Entire amount of compensation stands deposited with learned trial Court
at Kullu.
6. During pendency of case at hand, parties entered into
compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle the dispute inter se
them amicably. As per compromise, accused has agreed to get the entire
amount deposited by him with learned trial Court, released in favour of
complainant, who in turn has no objection in case, offence committed by
accused is ordered to be compounded and accused is acquitted.
Compromise is taken on record.
7. With a view to verify the factum with regard to compromise
entered into between the parties, this court directed complainant to come
present, who has come present in the court today. Complainant, on oath
states that he of his own volition and without any external pressure has
entered into compromise with the accused, whereby both the parties have
resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably. He states that in
case entire amount of Rs. 2.20 Lakh deposited by the complainant with
the learned trial Court, is released in his favour alongwith upto date
interest, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence. His
statement is taken record.
8. Having taken note of the fact that accused is ready for release
of entire amount, this court finds no impediment in accepting the prayer
made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of the offence, while
exercising power under S. 147 of the Act and in terms of guidelines laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal
H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, whereby it has been held that court, while
exercising power under S.147 can proceed to compound offence, even in
.
those cases, where accused stands convicted.
9. Consequently in view of above, present petition is allowed and
judgment dated 1.9.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu,
Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 35 /2012, and judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 9.5.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Lahul and Spiti at Kullu in Cr. Complaint No. 721/1 of 2009,
13/3 of 2010, are quashed and set aside. Accused is acquitted of charges
framed against him under S. 138 of the Act. Learned court below is
directed to release Rs. 2.20 Lakh deposited by the accused with it,
alongwith upto-date interest, in favour of complainant by remitting same
into his savings bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by the
complainant within one week.
10. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all
pending applications. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are
discharged.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
December 3, 2021
(Vikrant)
