Ashish Kumar Sonkar vs Sh.Puran
2021 Latest Caselaw 5295 HP

                                      1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                                BEFORE




                                                                .
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





                CRIMINAL REVISION NO.285 OF 2021
    Between:-





    ASHISH KUMAR SONKAR
    S/O OF LATE SH.NARESH KUMAR,
    PROPRIETOR PRT. M/S JHATKA MEAT
    SHOP, NEAR CHHOTU MECHANIC
    SHOP, DHALLI BAZAAR,





    TEHSIL & DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.                                          .....PETITIONER


    (BY SH.JAI DEV THAKUR, ADVOCATE)


    (PETITIONER     ASHISH     KUMAR
    SONKAR, IS PRESENT IN PERSON)

    AND


    SH. PURAN CHAND
    S/O LATE SH. MAUJI RAM,
    R/O VILLAGE MAJYALU, P,O. GUMMA,
    TEHSIL SUNNI, DISTT. SHIMLA, H.P.




    (BY SH.RAKESH     KUMAR    THAKUR,





    ADVOCATE)

    (RESPONDENT PURAN       CHAND,        IS
    PRESENT IN PERSON)





    Whether approved for reporting?

                This petition coming on for presence of parties this

    day, the Court passed the following:


                           JUDGMENT

Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing

judgment dated 01.12.2014, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-(II), Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. :RBT-91-

S/10 of 2013, titled as Sh.Ashish Kumar Sonkar vs. Sh.Puran

Chand, whereby judgment and order dated

13.02.2013/07.03.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate

.

First Class, Court No.(3), Shimla, H.P., in Case No.2065-3 of 2010,

titled as Sh.Puran Chand vs. Ashish Kumar Sonkar, convicting

and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for two months and to pay compensation of

`28,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.

2. Today, Ashish Kumar Sonkar-petitioner and Puran

Chand-respondent-complainant, are present in the Court, who

have been duly identified by their respective learned counsel and

their statements on oath have also been recorded separately and

placed on the file.

3. In his statement Puran Chand-respondent-

complainant has stated that matter has been amicably settled

with the petitioner-accused and he has received entire amount of

compensation and now nothing is to be received from the

petitioner and, therefore, amount of `10,000/- deposited by the

petitioner in the trial Court during pendency of appeal before

learned Sessions Judge, is to be released in favour of the

petitioner-accused. He has further stated that as per

compromise, he has agreed to withdraw the complaint for

compounding the case and, therefore, he has prayed for

permission to withdraw the complaint for compounding the case.

He has further stated that he has deposed in this Court, out of

his free will, consent and without any external pressure, coercion

or threat of any kind.

4. In his statement, petitioner-Ashish Kumar Sonkar

has endorsed the statement made by respondent-Puran Chand

.

to be true and correct. He has further stated that he has entered

into a compromise without any pressure and has signed the

compromise deed. He has further stated that he has deposed in

this Court out of his free will, consent and without any external

pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

5. Consequently, complainant-respondent Puran Chand

is permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is

compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted

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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is facing poor financial condition and is not able to pay

compounding fee @ 15% of the cheque amount and, therefore, a

prayer has been made by learned counsel for exempting or

reducing the compounding fee, keeping in view 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.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

instead of 15% of the cheque amount, it shall be appropriate to

levy `1000/- as compounding fee upon the petitioner-accused.

Accordingly, he is directed to deposit a sum of `1000/-, as

.

compounding fee, with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority,

Shimla, on or before 03.12.2021 from today and place receipt

thereof on record of this petition.

8. In case of default in depositing compounding

fee/cost with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority, Shimla, on or

before the aforesaid date, the judgments of conviction and

sentence shall automatically revive.

9. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms,

so also pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be

also sent to H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla.

10. The petitioner has deposited a sum of `10,000/- in

the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to release `10,000/-,

alongwith interest if any, accrued thereon, in favour of the

petitioner-Ashish Kumar without issuing any notice to

respondent-complainant-Puran Chand, by remitting the same in

his Savings Bank Account No.05640100005311, IFSC:

UCBA0000564, UCO Bank, Branch Dhalli, District Shimla, H.P., on

production of downloaded copy of this judgment in the trial

Court.

11. Petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this

judgment, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh, before the authorities concerned, and the said

authorities shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if

required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

.

    November 18, 2021





         (Purohit)





                        r       to