Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between vs Offices Of Lic Housing Finance ... on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 150 OF 2014
Between:
SH. MADAN LAL,
S/O SHRI PRITAM CHAND,
R/O VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE, URLA,
TEHSIL JOGINDERNAGAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAJIV RAI,
ADVOCATE)
AND
LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,
A BODY CORPORATE DULY ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING
PERPETUAL SUCCESSION ALL OVER INDIA
AND COMMON SEAL AND RUNNING IT'S
BUSINESS OF HOUSING FINANCE BY OPERATING
VARIOUS BRANCHES OFFICES AND AREA
OFFICES OF LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED IS
LOCATED AND SITUATED AT ROYAL HOTEL BUILDING,
NEAR BUS STAND SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH IT'S ASSOCIATE MANAGER SHRI
HITENDER SINGH VERMA.
....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. AJIT PAL JASWAL,
ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting?.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.PC
read with Section 401 of Cr.PC, lays challenge to judgment dated
19.2.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge (Forest) Shimla,
.
Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No. 142-3/10 of 2013/12, affirming
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16/30.12.2011, passed
by the learned JMFC-3, Shimla, H.P., in case No. 3061/3 of 2010, whereby
the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having
committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (in short the "Act"), convicted and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay
compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are
that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of
the Act, in the court of learned JMFC Shimla, alleging therein that it deals
with business of housing finance and as such, advanced sum of Rs.
3,00,000/- to the accused vide loan No. 18003404. The accused with a
view to discharge his liability, issued cheque bearing No. 817233 dated
7.6.2010 amounting to Rs. 4,46,255/-, but fact remains that aforesaid
cheque, on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient
funds. Since petitioner-accused failed to make the payment good within the
time stipulated in the legal notice, respondent/complainant was compelled
to initiate proceedings before the competent Court of law under Section 138
of the Act.
3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record
.
by the respective parties, vide judgment dated 16/30.12.2011, held the
petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of
the Act and accordingly, sentenced him as per the description given herein
above.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction recorded by the court below, accused preferred an appeal in the
court of learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, which also came to be
dismissed vide judgment dated 19.2.2014, as a consequence of which,
judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be
upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused has
approached this Court by way of instant proceedings, seeking therein his
acquittal after setting aside the judgments of conviction recorded by the
courts below.
5. Vide order dated 24.6.2014, this Court suspended the sentence
imposed by the court below subject to deposit of compensation amount
within three weeks. Matter repeatedly came to be adjourned enabling the
accused to make the entire payment on his request.
6. Today during the proceedings the case, learned counsel
appearing for the parties fairly state that during the pendency of the
present petition, parties have settled their dispute amicably inter-se them.
7. Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, on the instructions of his client, who is
.
present in the Court, states that as per compromise, sum of Rs. 3,25,000/-
has been agreed to be paid to the respondent-complainant. He further
states that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs. 2,25,000/-, has been paid to
the respondent-complainant, whereas sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- lying
deposited in the Registry of this court, can be ordered to be released in
favour of the respondent-complainant and thereafter, this Court while
exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to compound
the offence and acquit the petitioner of the charges framed against him.
8. Mr. Ajeet Pal Jaswal, Advocate, on instructions of his client
namely Hitender, Area Manager, of the respondent complainant, fairly
admits factum with regard to compromise inter-se parties. He states that
as per compromise, Rs. 2,25,000/- has been received by the respondent,
whereas sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- lying deposited in the Registry of this court
has been agreed to be paid to the respondent and in case, aforesaid
amount is paid to the respondent complainant, respondent shall have no
objection if petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed against him under
Section 138 of the Act.
9. Since entire amount of compensation awarded by the court
below has been paid or agreed to be paid by the petitioner to the
complainant, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made
on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising
.
power under Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H.
(2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein it has been categorically held that court, while
exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound
the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below.
10. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to
be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated
19.2.2014 and 16/30.12.2011, passed by the courts below are quashed
and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed
against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order is vacated. Bail
bonds, if any, discharged. Amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, alongwith uptodate
interest lying deposited in the Registry of this Court, shall be released in
favour of the complainant by remitting the same in its bank account, detail
whereof shall be furnished by the learned counsel within a period of two
weeks. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of alongwith pending
applications, if any.
6th December, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
