Shri Davinder Singh vs Resident Of Gurudwara Road
2021 Latest Caselaw 5760 HP

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                    ON THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                                       BEFORE

                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA




                                                                       .

                           CR. APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2010

    Between:-





    SHRI DAVINDER SINGH
    SON OF SHRI MANOHAR SINGH
    RESIDENT OF GURUDWAWA ROAD,
    KOTWALI BAZAR, DHARAMSALA
                                        .. APPELLANT-ACCUSED





    (BY MR. J.S. BHOGAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE
    WITH MR. SUNEET GOEL, ADVOCATE)

    AND               r
    SH. ASHA SHARMA
    WIFE OF SHRI YOGENDER SHARMA

    RESIDENT OF GURUDWARA ROAD,
    KOTWALI BAZAR, DHARAMSALA
                                                                     RESPONDENT
    (BY MR. ASHOK CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE)


    Whether approved for reporting: Yes.

      This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court delivered the following:




                                 J U D G M E N T

Instant appeal under S. 378 CrPC, lays challenge to the

judgment of acquittal dated 30.1.2010, recorded by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, (HP) in Criminal

Case No. 54-III/2007, whereby complaint having been filed by

appellant/complainant (hereinafter, complainant), came to be dismissed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are

that the complainant instituted a complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, 'Act') against the respondent/accused

(hereinafter, 'accused') alleging therein that accused is running a shop of

confectionery in the name and style of "Varun confectionery'. Complainant

alleged that that accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/- from the

complainant on 5.12.2005, for the marriage of her daughter and also for

.

the purpose of business. Complainant further alleged that with a view to

discharge her liability, accused issued cheque bearing No. 0101800,

dated 15.9.2006 (Ext. CW-1/A) amounting to Rs. 3,55,000/-, payable at

Bank of India, Branch, Dharamshala. However, the fact remains that the

aforesaid cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured by the Bank

concerned, on account of insufficient funds, vide memo Ext. CW-1/C, as

such, complainant served accused with a legal notice dated 25.11.2006

(Ext. CW-1/D) to make good the payment within the time stipulated in the

notice, but since she failed to make the payment despite having received

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 pleadings and the evidence

adduced on record by respective parties, dismissed the complaint having

been filed by the complainant and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved

and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned trial

Court, complainant preferred instant appeal praying therein for conviction

of the accused, after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by

learned court below.

4. On 26.10.2021, case was heard at length but before same

could be decided on its merit, parties resolved to settle the dispute inter

se them amicably and as such, this court directed the parties to remain

present in the court on the next date of hearing. On 17.11.2021, both the

parties came present. Respondent-accused Asha Sharma stated that she

is ready and willing to make payment of entire amount of compensation

i.e. Rs.3,55,000/- within one month, as such, matter was adjourned for

.

today's date.

5. Today, pursuant to direction dated 17.11.2021, accused has

come present with a sum of Rs. 3,55,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

Sum of Rs.3,55,000/-, in cash, has been paid to the complainant, who is

present in the court.

6. In view of above, learned counsel for the complainant, on

instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal.

7. Consequently the appeal at hand is dismissed as withdrawn.

Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

December 15, 2021 (Vikrant)