Himachal Pradesh High Court
Between vs H.P. State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 29 December, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 29th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 34 OF 2014
Between:
MADAN SHARMA,
S/O SH. RAMA NAND SHARMA,
PROPRIETOR M/S S. PRINTERS,
SHOP NO. 23/1,
SANJAULI, SHIMLA-6, HP.
....PETITIONER
(BY MR. PEEYUSH VERMA,
ADVOCATE)
AND
H.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
THE MALL, SHIMLA, H.P. THROUGH ITS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. SUSHANT VIR SINGH
THAKUR, 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, lays challenge to judgment dated 1.1.2014, passed by the learned
Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, HP, in Criminal Appeal No. 81-S/10 of
2010/2013, titled Sh. Madan Sharma v. HP State Cooperative Bank,
affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
.
31.10.2012/22.11.2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class-3, Shimla, District Mandi, H.P., in Case No. 3371-3 of 2010/09,
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 one month and pay
compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,10,000/- 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shimla,
alleging therein that the complainant-bank had advanced self-employment
loan amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- to the accused. Since accused failed to
repay the same, he issued cheque in the sum of Rs. 90,000/- drawn at
IndusInd Bank Ltd., The Mall, Shimla, in favour of the complainant, but
fact remains that the aforesaid cheque on its presentation was
dishonoured. 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 31.10.2012/22.11.2012,
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, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., which also
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 1.1.2014, 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 31.1.2014, this Court, while suspending the
substantive sentence imposed by the court below, directed the accused to
deposit compensation amount, within a period of eight weeks, but fact
remains that aforesaid order never came to be complied with.
6. Today during the proceedings of the case, petitioner-accused
has filed application bearing Cr.MP No. 2690 of 2021, under Section 147 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, praying therein to compound the offence
alleged to have been committed by the petitioner-accused on the ground
.
that entire amount of compensation as awarded by the learned court below
stands repaid to the complainant bank.
7. Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, states that petitioner has entered into compromise with the
complainant bank, whereby both the parties have decided to settle the
dispute for sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- under the One Time Settlement Scheme.
He states that as per One Time Settlement, sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- already
stands deposited with the respondent-Bank, which fact has been duly
acknowledged by Mr. Sushant Vir Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-complainant Bank. Mr. Sushant Vir Singh Thakur,
learned counsel, on instructions imparted to him, fairly states that bank
shall have no objection in case prayer made by the petitioner-accused for
compounding of offence is accepted.
8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of
compensation stands paid to the respondent-complainant and respondent
has no objection in compounding the offence, 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.
9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to be
compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated
31.10.2012/22.11.2012 and 1.1.2014, 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, if any, is
vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. Accordingly, the petition is disposed
of alongwith pending applications, if any.
29th December, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
