Between vs Sangeeta Sharma
2021 Latest Caselaw 5123 HP

                                       1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                 ON THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021




                                                            .
                                  BEFORE





           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.281 OF 2021
    Between:-
    VIKAS BANSAL





    AGED 33 YEARS,
    S/O SHRI PAWAN BANSAL,
    M/S BALDEV DASS SHYAM LAL,
    NEAR SATYA NARAYAN TEMPLE,
    RAMPUR BUSHEHAR, DISTRICT SHIMLA,
    H.P.

                                                               .....PETITIONER

    (BY SH.Y.P. SOOD, ADVOCATE)


    AND



    SANGEETA SHARMA
                                                              ...RESPONDENT
    W/O DEEPAK SHARMA,
    PROP.    DEEP      AUTO     WORKS,




    CHUHABAGH,
    TEHSIL RAMPUR, DISTRICT SHIMLA, H.P.





    (BY MS. RITU RAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

    Whether approved for reporting?





                This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
    passed the following:
                                      JUDGMENT

Cr.M.P. No. 2156 of 2021 (CRMPST/5496/21

Petitioner has filed application under Section 147 of

the Negotiable instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act') read with Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in

short 'Cr.P.C.'), which has been taken on record in the Court.

2. Be registered.

.

Cr. Revision No.281/2021 & Cr.M.P. No.2156/2021

3. Present Revision Petition has been filed assailing

judgment dated 19.09.2019, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla,

H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2019, titled as Vikas Bansal vs.

Sangeeta Sharma, whereby judgment and order of conviction

dated 18.04.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Kinnaur, Camp at Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., in

Complaint N.I. Act No.405 of 2013, titled as Sangeeta Sharma vs.

Vikas Bansal, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay

compensation of `2,00,000/- to the complainant, has been

affirmed.

3. Today, mother of petitioner Vikas Bansal as well as

complainant-respondent are present in the Court, who have

been duly identified by their learned counsel and their

statements on oath have been also recorded separately.

4. In her statement, complainant Sangeeta Sharma has

stated that matter has been amicably settled with the petitioner

and as per compromise, she has agreed to accept full and final

payment against amount of compensation equivalent to cheque

amount i.e. `2,00,000/- and the same amount has been paid by

Smt.Sunita Bansal, mother of petitioner Vikas Bansal and, in

turn, she has agreed to withdraw the complaint for compounding

the case. She has further stated that she has deposed in this

Court, out of her free will, consent and without any external

.

pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

5. In her statement, Smt.Sunita Bansal, mother of

petitioner Vikas Bansal, has stated that because of loss in

business, petitioner could not pay the amount and now she has

arranged the amount from nears and dears and has paid the

same to the respondent-complainant and she is not in a position

to arrange any further amount, therefore, she has prayed for

exemption of compounding fee and that moreover, petitioner

Vikas Bansal, has been arrested on 05.10.2021 and he is serving

the sentence. She has further stated that she has deposed in

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

pressure, coercion or threat of any kind.

6. Consequently, complainant-respondent Sangeeta

Sharma 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.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

a fit case for exempting the petitioner from 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, as mother of

.

petitioner-Vikas Bansal has arranged the amount of

compensation with great difficulty by borrowing the same from

her near and dear.

8. Considering the fact that petitioner has been

arrested and he has served part of the sentence, I find that it is a

fit case for exempting the compounding fee and accordingly the

same is exempted. r

9. In view of acquittal of petitioner, he be released

forthwith. Release warrants be prepared accordingly and be sent

to Model Central Jail, Kanda, District Shimla.

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

so also pending application(s), if any.

11. Copy dasti on usual terms.

12. 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.

October 30, 2021 (Purohit)