Kullu vs Sayed Babalal H. 2010 (5)
2021 Latest Caselaw 4887 HP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                 ON THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
                             BEFORE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 189 of 2019
    BETWEEN:-




                                                                      .

         RUPESH SHARMA, SON OF
         SHRI RAM LAL RESIDENT OF
         VILLAGE HAAT, PO BAJAURA,
         TEHSIL AND DISTRICT





         KULLU,HP
                                                                       ....PETITIONER
        (BY SH. B.L. SONI, ADVOCATE)

        AND





         DALVEER SINGH SON OF SHRI
         BALI RAM, RESIDENT OF
         VILLAGE NERI, P.O FOJAL,
         TEHSIL AND DISTT.
         KULLU,HP.
                        r                                     ......RESPONDENT

        (BY SH.MAAN SINGH ADVOCATE

        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

5.4.2019, passed by Sessions Judge Kullu, District Kullu,HP in Criminal

Appeal/CIS Case No. (Reg.No.) 01/2019, whereby judgment/order dated

9.1.2019/10.1.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in

Criminal Complaint 16-/2013 (332-I/2015), convicting and sentencing the

petitioner-accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo

simple imprisonment for three months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

to the complainant, has been affirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has

.

instructions to state that in case respondent-complainant Dalveer Singh is ready to

accept amount of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner-

accused in the Registry of this Court plus Rs. 30,000/- over and above the said

amount of compensation, then petitioner shall be interested for amicable settlement

instead of contesting the Revision petition on merit. He has further stated that as

per the instructions of the petitioner, respondent has agreed for amicable settlement

and, therefore, he has been instructed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the respondent-

complainant through his counsel by tendering cheque of the aforesaid amount in

the Court today and, therefore, he has handed over Rs.30,000/- to the counsel for

the respondent over and above amount of compensation deposited by the

petitioner in the Registry of this Court. It is further stted that as per compromise,

amount deposited by the petitioner is to be released in favour of respondent-

complainant and therefore, petitioner is praying for deciding the petition in terms

of compromise by compounding the case.

3. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is

unemployed person and his brother in law (Jija) has expired and responsibility of

his sister as also devolved upon him and therefore, he prays for exemption 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 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.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances and ratio of laid down by the Apex

Court in aforesaid cases, the petitioner is exempted from paying the compounding

fee.

5. As an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner

in the Registry of this High Court, therefore, Registry is directed to release the

aforesaid amount in favour of complainant -respondent Dalveer Singh along with

interest, if any accrued thereon, without issuing notice to the accused-petitioner

(Rupesh Sharma), by remitting the same in his bank account

No.1036000100020883, IFSC PUNB0103600, details whereof (Photocopy of front

page of pass book) have been furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent,

which have been placed on record.

6. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the

pending application(s), if any.

                                                           (Vivek Singh Thakur),
    4th October, 2021                                            Judge.
         (veena)