Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bijender Singh vs Instruments Act (Hereinafter on 25 October, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 212 OF 2021
Between:-
BIJENDER SINGH
SON OF SH. MAN SINGH,
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANECH,
POST OFFICE KARGANOO,
TEHSIL RAJGARH, DISTRICT SIRMAUR,
HP
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. ANIRUDH SHARMA,
ADVOCATE)
AND
SANJAY KUMAR
SON OF LATE SH. SOHAN SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NERI JAGELA,
POST OFFICE KARGANOO, TEHSIL RAJGARH,
DISTRICT SIRMAUR,
H.P.
.. RESPONDENT
(BY MR. KANWAR PRADEEP SINGH,
ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting:
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Instant Cr. Revision petition filed under Ss. 397/401 CrPC, lays
challenge to judgment dated 30.3.2020 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 46-Cr.A/10
of 2019 affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
24.4.2019/30.4.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P. in Complaint No. 166/2016 (Registration
.
No. 66 of 2016), titled Sanjay Kumar vs. Bijender Singh, whereby learned
trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty
of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') convicted and sentenced him to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a
compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakh to the respondent-complainant
(hereinafter, 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are
that the complainant instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act in the
court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgah, alleging therein
that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- to the accused on his
request for his personal and domestic use and, with a view to discharge
his liability, accused issued cheque Ext. CW-1/B for Rs.2,70,000/-, but the
fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on
account of insufficient funds. Since despite having received legal notice
served upon the accused by the complainant, accused failed to make
good the payment, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings
under S.138 of the Act in the competent Court of law. Learned trial Court,
on the basis of evidence collected on record by the complainant held the
accused guilty of commission of offence punishable under S.138 of the
Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given
above.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of
conviction passed by learned trial court, accused preferred an appeal in
.
the court of learned Sessions Judge Sirmaur at Nahan, HP, which was
also dismissed on 30.3.2020. In the aforesaid background petitioner has
approached this court in the present criminal revision, praying therein for
his acquittal after setting aside impugned judgments and order of
conviction recorded by learned courts below.
4. Vide order dated 16.9.2021, this court, while suspending the
sentence imposed by learned trial Court, directed the accused to deposit
15% of the cheque amount and to furnish personal bonds in the trial court.
Aforesaid order stands complied with.
5. Today during the proceedings of the case, learned Counsel
appearing for the accused stated that entire sum of Rs. 3.00 Lakh
awarded by learned trial Court stands paid to the complainant and as
such, this court, while exercising power under S.147 of the Act, can
proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of the charges
framed against him.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant-Sanjay Kumar, who is
otherwise present in the court, states that sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- stands
received in cash, whereas sum of Rs.75,000/- is lying deposited with
learned trial Court, for which accused has no objection if same is released
in his favour, as such, complainant shall have no objection, in case prayer
made on behalf of the accused for compounding of offence is accepted.
Complainant on oath states that since he has received Rs.2,25,000/- in
cash and accused has agreed for release of Rs.75,000/- lying deposited
with the learned trial Court, in his favour, as such, he shall have no
objection, in case the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against
.
him under S.138 of the Act. Complainant further states that he has come
to the court to make statement, of his own volition and without there being
any external pressure. His statement is taken on record.
7. Since the parties to lis have already resolved to settle the
dispute inter se them amicably and in terms of compromise between
them, Rs. 2,25,000/- has been received by complainant and remaining
amount of Rs. 75,000/- has been agreed to be released in his favour by
the accused, this court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made
in the present petition, for compounding of the offence, while exercising
power under S.147 of the Act as well as guidelines laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC
663, whereby it has been held that court while exercising power under
S.147 can proceed to compound offence even in those cases, where
accused stands convicted.
8. In view of above, present revision is allowed. Judgments/order
of conviction and sentence passed by both the learned Courts below are
quashed and set aside and accused is acquitted of the charges framed
against him under S.138 of the Act. Bonds furnished by the accused are
discharged. Needless to say, Rs.75,000/- lying deposited with learned trial
Court shall be released in favour of the complainant, and remitted into his
saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by the
complainant to the learned trial Court.
9. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all
pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
.
October 26, 2021
(Vikrant)
r to
