Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lal Singh vs Sunder Singh on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.348 OF 2019
Between:-
LAL SINGH
S/O SH. PRITHVI SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST
OFFICE SATAUN, TEHSIL KAMRAU,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR, H.P.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SH.VINOD CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND r
SUNDER SINGH
S/O SH.RATI RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANDO,
POST OFFICE DUGANA,
TEHSIL PAONTA SAHIB,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR, H.P. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SH. GAMBHIR CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE, VICE SH.SURINDER
VERMA, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
Court passed the following:
ORDER
Present Revision Petition has been filed, assailing
judgment dated 07.08.2019, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (Camp at Paonta
Sahib), in Criminal Appeal No.65-N/10 of 2018, titled as Lal Singh
vs. Sunder Singh, whereby judgment and order dated
12.06.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Court No.2, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P., in Criminal Case
No.73/3 of 2015/13 titled as Sunder Singh vs. Lal Singh,
convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of
.
`1,60,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.
2. Statements of Shri Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Shri Gambhir Chauhan, Advocate,
appearing under instructions of Mr.Surinder Verma, Advocate,
original counsel for the respondent, have been recorded,
separately, and placed on the file.
3. In his statement, Mr.Vinod Chauhan, learned
counsel, has stated that he has been duly authorized to make
statement on behalf of the petitioner and has instructions to say
that matter has been amicably settled with the respondent and
entire amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent
and the respondent, in turn, has agreed to withdraw the
complaint for compounding the case. He has further stated that
petitioner has deposited a sum of `32,000/- in the trial Court and
as per compromise, this amount has to be refunded to the
petitioner. He has stated that petitioner is a poor person and has
paid the entire amount of compensation by borrowing the same
from his nears and dears, therefore, he has prayed that
petitioner may be exempted from paying the compounding fee.
He has further stated that as per instructions imparted to him,
compromise has been arrived at with free will, consent and
without any external pressure, coercion or threat of any kind and
further that his deposition is strictly in terms of instructions
imparted to him by the petitioner.
4. In his statement, Mr.Gambhir Chauhan, learned
counsel, has stated that he is representing the respondent,
.
under instructions of learned original counsel Mr.Surinder Verma,
Advocate and is duly authorized to make statement on behalf of
the respondent. He has endorsed the statement of Mr.Vinod
Chauhan, Advocate, to be true and correct and, therefore, he, on
behalf of respondent, has no objection for compounding the
case, after permitting the complainant to withdraw the
complaint. He has stated that as per compromise, the amount
deposited by the petitioner is to be refunded to him. He has
further stated that as per instructions imparted to him, by
learned original counsel, compromise has been arrived at with
free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion or
threat of any kind and further that his deposition is strictly in
consonance with instructions imparted to him by the respondent
through learned original counsel.
5. Consequently, complainant-respondent Sunder
Singh is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is
compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted
to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence
passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside.
Petitioner-accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against
him.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is facing poor financial condition and is not able to pay
compounding fee @ 15% and, therefore, a prayer has been made
by learned counsel for exempting or reducing the compounding
.
fee, keeping in view ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) SCC 663, as
clarified in Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Vs.
Prateek Jain and another 2014 (10) SCC 690.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
instead of 15% of the cheque amount, it shall be appropriate to
levy `1500/- as compounding fee upon the petitioner-accused.
Accordingly, he is directed to deposit a sum of `1500/-, as
compounding fee, with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority,
Shimla, within two weeks from today and place receipt thereof
on record of this petition.
8. In case of default in depositing compounding
fee/cost with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority, Shimla,
within the aforesaid period, the judgments of conviction and
sentence shall automatically revive.
9. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms,
so also pending application(s), if any. Copy of this order be also
sent to H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla.
10. The petitioner has deposited a sum of `32,000/- in
the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to release `32,000/-,
alongwith interest if any, accrued thereon, in favour of the
petitioner without issuing any notice to respondent Sunder Singh,
by remitting the same in his Savings Bank Account, on
production of downloaded copy of this order, including details of
his bank account, in the trial Court.
11. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this
.
order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of
Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said
authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if
required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
Judge.
December 6, 2021
(Purohit)
