Dalip Singh Thakur vs Shyam Lal Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 1367 HP

                                                                             .
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA





                                          Cr. Revision No. 242 of 2020
                                         Date of Decision 26th February,2021





    ________________________________________________________

    Dalip Singh Thakur                                                   ....Petitioner
                                                    Versus





    Shyam Lal Sharma
                                                                    ......Respondent
    ________________________________________________________

    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

        Whether approved for reporting?1
    ______________________________________________________________
    For the Petitioner:                         Mr. Nikhil Chugh, Advocate vice



                                                Mr.Manoj Pathak, Advocate.

    For the Respondent:           Mr.Dalip K. Sharma, Advocate.




    _____________________________________________________________
    Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(oral)

Present revision petition has been filed assailing

judgment dated 1.7.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions

Judge-I, Shimla, District Shimla H.P., in Cr. Appeal No. 33-S/10 of

2015 whereby judgment/order dated 12.03.2015/25.04.2015,

passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court

No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, in criminal case 3052-3 of 2014/13

convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo

Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay

compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- to the complainant has been

.

affirmed.

2. Respondent/complainant, present in Court today,

has stated, in his statement, that he is complainant in the

present case, wherein the Courts below have awarded and

affirmed Rs.3,30,000/- compensation payable by petitioner Dalip

Singh Thakur to him and have also sentenced Dalip Singh to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year and now, the

petitioner has deposited entire amount of compensation in the

Registry of this Court. He has stated that in case the said amount

is released in his favour by remitting the same in his bank

account No. 14450101101906, UCO Bank Dharampur, Tehsil

Theog, District Shimla-171201, then, he is ready for withdrawing

his complaint for compounding the case and it has been

informed by petitioner that he is ready and willing to release the

amount in his (complainant) favour and therefore, he has prayed

for compounding the case in aforesaid terms and has stated that

he has deposed in the Court today out of his free will and

consent and also without any fear, threat, pressure or coercion of

any kind.

3. Petitioner Dalip Singh, who is also present in Court

today, has endorsed the statement of complainant to be true and

correct and has further stated that he has no objection for the

release of amount, deposited by him in Registry of this Court to

.

respondent Shyam Lal Sharma, and in view of this settlement, he

has prayed for compounding the case. It is also stated by him

that out of one year sentence, he has served the sentence for

about 7 months as he remained in Model Central Jail, Kanda w.e.f.

23rd March, 2020 to 17th October, 2020 and thereafter, he has

managed the compensation amount by arranging the money

from nears and dears and therefore, he is not in a position to pay

the compounding fee and has prayed for exemption. He has

stated that he has made this statement out of his free will and

consent, and also without any threat, fear, pressure or coercion.

4 In view of aforesaid statement made by parties,

respondent/complainant is permitted to withdraw the complaint

and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of

dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Act is treated 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.

5 Learned counsel for the pe titioner reiterating

submission of petitioner, has also prayed for exempting the

amount of compounding fee. It is also submitted by him that

considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in

Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663,

.

as clarified by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal

Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10

SCC 690 wherein it has been held that Court may

reduce/exempt compounding fee for given facts and

circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of

exemption of compounding fee.

6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, I

am of the opinion that it is an appropriate case to exempt the

petitioner from paying the compounding fee.

7 The Registry of this Court is directed to release

Rs.3,30,000/- along with up-to-date interest in favour of

respondent Shyam Lal Sharma by remitting the same in his bank

account No. 14450101101906, UCO Bank, Dharampur, Tehsil

Theog, District Shimla-171201.

8. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so

also the pending application(s), if any.

    February 26,2021                                 (Vivek SinghThakur),
      ms                                                   Judge