Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mandir vs Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5) Scc 663 As ... on 15 November, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 250 OF 2020
BETWEEN:-
INDERJEET SEDHA S/O
JASWANT RAJ SEDHA R/O
WARD NO. 1 NEAR DURGA
MANDIR, AMLOH, DISTRICT
FATHEGARH PUNJAB. ....PETITIONER
(BY SH. DHEERAJ K. VASHISHT, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH,
S/O GANGA SAGAR R/O H. NO.
E-12 STAFF COLONY 121,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, DEEPAK
SPINNER LTD. BADDI
DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
2. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH. ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SH.ANUJ GUPTA, ADVOCATE, FOR
RESPODNENT NO. 1).
(BY SH.RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY
ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR
RESPODNENT NO. 2).
Whether approved for reporting?
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered
the following:
JUDGMENT
Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing judgment,
dated 7.10.2020, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Nalagarh, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 4-NL/10 of 2020, whereby
judgment/order dated 6.12.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
1st Class, Court No. 2, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. in Cr. Complaint
No. 98/3 of 2018, convicting and sentencing the petitioner-accused
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of `2,20,000/- to
the complainant, has been affirmed.
.
2. Mr.Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel for petitioner,
under instructions, in his statement recorded today in the Court, has
stated that he is authorized and competent to make statement on behalf
of petitioner that petitioner intends to compromise the matter and,
therefore, petitioner has no objection for release of entire amount of
compensation i.e. `1,76,000/- deposited by him in the Registry of this
Court and `44,000/- deposited in the trial Court during pendency of
appeal before appellate Court. He has further stated that he has also
instructions to communicate that due to poor financial condition,
petitioner is not in a position to pay compounding fee and, therefore,
prayer for exemption of payment of compounding fee has been made.
According to him, he has deposed in consonance with the instructions
imparted to him for compounding the case.
3. Mr.Anuj Gupta, Advocate, learned counsel representing
respondent No. 1/ complainant, in his statement has stated that he is
authorized and competent to make statement on behalf of respondent
No. 1 and he has instructions to communicate that respondent No. 1 is
ready to withdraw the complaint for release of entire amount in his
favour and prayer for awarding some additional amount for
compounding the case has also been made. Lastly, he has deposed
that his deposition in Court is strictly in consonance with instructions
imparted to him by respondent No. 1/complainant.
4. So far as prayer for awarding additional amount made on
behalf of respondent No. 1/complaint is concerned, considering the
entire facts and circumstances of the case and time taken for
.
adjudication of present case in comparison to other older cases, I do not
consider it a fit case to award additional amount of compensation other
than the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court.
5. Consequently, respondent No. 1/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.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for exemption
of compounding fee on the ground that due to poor financial condition,
petitioner could not pay the amount well in time and now he is not in a
position to pay the 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 State Legal Services Authority Vs.
Prateek Jain and another 2014 (10) SCC 690, a lenient view be taken
and the petitioner be exempted from payment of compounding fee.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and ratio of
law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, instead of 15% of
the cheque amount, petitioner/accused is directed to deposit `5,000/- as
compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla
within four weeks from today.
8. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall
place a copy of receipt of deposit of compounding fee on record of this
petition. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with the
.
H.P. State Legal Service Authority, Shimla within eight weeks from
today, the judgments of conviction and sentence shall automatically
revive.
9. As an amount of `1,76,000/- has been deposited by
petitioner in the Registry of this court, therefore, Registry of this Court is
directed to release the said amount, along with interest, if any, to the
respondent No. 1/complainant Birendra Bahadur Singh, by remitting the
same in his bank account to be supplied by the respondent in person or
through his counsel `44,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner in
the Trial Court, therefore, the Trial Court is also directed to release the
amount of compensation, deposited by the petitioner/accused in favour
of respondent No. 1/complainant Birendra Bahadur Singh, along with
interest, if any accrued thereon, without issuing notice to the accused-
petitioner (Inderjeet Sedha) by remitting the same in his bank account,
details whereof shall be furnished by him either in person or through
counsel at the time of production of copy of this order in the trial Court.
10. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also
the pending application(s), if any.
11. Copy of this judgment be sent to H.P. State Legal Services
Authority, Shimla.
12. Parties are permitted to use downloaded copy from the High
Court website for depositing the compounding fee with the H.P. Legal
Services Authority, Shimla and for other purposes also. Concerned
authority shall not insist for certified copy. Passing of order may be
verified from High Court website.
Copy Dasti.
.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
th
15 November, 2021 Judge.
(Keshav)
r to
