Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rakesh Bali vs Salinder Kumar on 25 February, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.R No. 72 of 2019
Decided on: 25.2.2021
.
Rakesh Bali ...Petitioner.
Versus
Salinder Kumar .....Respondent.
______________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral).
Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing
judgment, dated 4.1.2019, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P in Criminal
Appeal No. 107-N/10 of 2018, whereby judgment/order dated
23.10.2018/25.10.2018, passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Cr.
Case No. 338/3 of 2015, convicting and sentencing the
petitioner-accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
compensation of `1,50,000/- to the complainant, has been
affirmed.
.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Rakesh Bali,
states that petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the
present case by trial court and apart from sentencing for
imprisonment, he has been directed to pay compensation
amounting to Rs. 1.50 lac to the respondent-complainant. He
further submits that petitioner has duly authorized him to make
statement on his behalf and to pray for compounding of the
case, and in case respondent-complainant is ready to accept
the compensation amount and to compound the matter, then he
has instructions to communicate that in that eventuality
petitioner he is ready for compounding of the case and for
release of compensation amount to the respondent-
complainant. Out of Rs. 1.50 lac petitioner has deposited Rs.
30,000/- in the trial court and remaining 1.20 lac has been
deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court and he
has no objection for release of entire 1.50 lac in favour of the
respondent in case of compounding of the case. He further
submits that he has also instructions to pray for waiving of
compounding fee because during lock-down/Covid pandemic,
petitioner has lost his job and now he is maintaining himself on
the income of his son. He further states that he has deposed
.
on behalf of the petitioner strictly in terms of the instructions
imparted to him.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant
submits that he has been duly authorized by the respondent to
make statement and compromise the matter on his behalf. He
further submits that he has instructions to submit that in case
petitioner is ready to pay compensation amount of Rs. 1.50 lac
to the respondent-complainant, then he is ready to compound
the case. He also submits that as the petitioner has expressed
his willingness for compounding of the case and conveyed his
no objection for release of Rs. 1.50 lac to the respondent, the
case be compounded and amount of compensation be released
in favour of the respondent by remitting the same in his bank
account, details of which are to be supplied in the Registry of
this Court within seven days. He further states that he has
deposed on behalf of the respondent strictly in terms of the
instructions imparted to him.
4. Consequently, respondent/complainant is permitted
to withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and
.
complaint arising out of dishonor of cheque, under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is treated to be withdrawn
and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the
Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner-accused is
acquitted of the accusation framed against him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that petitioner is facing financial constraint, therefore, he has
submitted that considering 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,
compounding fee may be exempted or a lessor amount may be
imposed.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, petitioner/accused is exempted from payment of
compounding fee.
7. Registry is directed to release the amount of
compensation, deposited by the petitioner, alongwith up-to-date
interest, if any accrued thereon, to respondent Salinder Kumar,
by remitting the same in his Bank Account, details whereof shall
be supplied by the respondent through counsel.
.
8. Trial Court is directed to release the amount of
compensation, deposited by the petitioner, alongwith up-to-date
interest, if any accrued thereon, to respondent Salinder Kumar,
by remitting the same in his Bank Account, on filing appropriate
application. The said amount shall be released without giving
any notice of application to the petitioner-accused.
9. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms,
so also the pending application(s).
10. Petitioner may produce the downloaded copy of the
order passed by the Court before the Authorities concerned if
required and the concerned Authority shall not insist for the
certified copy of order, rather passing of order can be verified
from the web-page of this Court.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
25th February, 2021
(Guleria)
