Himachal Pradesh High Court
Gulshan Kumar vs State Bank Of India on 9 September, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 517 OF 2019
Between:-
GULSHAN KUMAR
S/O SH. RAM DASS SHARMA,
R/O VILLAGE KHAROTA, PARGNA SUNHANI,
TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR,
H.P.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. ASHWANI PATHAK,
SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH
MR. SANDEEP SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BANK OF INDIA,
BRANCH AT GHANDIR,
TEHSIL JHANDUTTA, DISTRICT BILASPUR,
H.P.
.. RESPONDENT
(MR. ARVIND SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting:
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under S.397 CrPC,
challenge has been laid to judgment dated 19.12.2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur HP (camp at
Bilaspur), in Cr. Appeal No. 14/10 of 2018, confirming the judgment and
order of conviction dated 26.2.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., in complaint
No. 25-2 of 2013/12, whereby learned court below, while holding
petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed
.
offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.9.00 Lakh to the
complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are
that respondent /complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant'), instituted a
complaint under S. 138 of the Act alleging therein that accused applied for
loan to the complainant bank for purchasing truck and as such, loan to the
tune Rs.11.00 Lakh was sanctioned in favour of the accused, which he
was to repay in installments. Complainant alleged that since the accused
failed to pay monthly installments, he with a view to discharge his liability
issued Cheque bearing No. 0001306 dated 22.9.2012, amounting to Rs..
9,03.244/- drawn at Himachal Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited,
however, the fact remains that on presentation of cheque to bank
concerned, same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since
the accused despite issuance of legal notice, failed to make payment
within the time stipulated in the notice, complainant was compelled to
institute proceedings under S.138 of the Act. Learned court below on the
basis of pleadings and evidence led on record by respective parties, held
the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138 of
Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein
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 Additional Sessions Judge Ghumarwin, District
Bilaspur, HP (camp at Bilaspur), which was dismissed on 19.12.2019. 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 30.12.2019 this court while suspending
substantive sentence imposed by learned court below directed, the
petitioner to deposit 50% of compensation amount and furnish personal
bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one surety in the like amount. In
compliance to aforesaid order though petitioner furnished personal bonds
but failed to deposit compensation amount.
5. Today during proceedings of the case, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner, on instructions, states that during the pendency of
present petition, parties to lis have entered into compromise under One
Time Settlement Scheme, whereby petitioner has paid agreed amount as
is evident from the No Dues Certificate issued by complainant bank on
28.12.2020 annexed with CrMP No. 1679 of 2021. Learned senior
counsel further states that in view of aforesaid amicable settlement,
petitioner has filed CrMP No. 1679 of 2021, placing therein factum with
regard to compromise and receipt issued by respondent bank. He states
that since the matter stands compromised inter se parties, this court while
exercising power under S.147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the
offence.
6. Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent bank
.
fairly acknowledges the factum with regard to compromise arrived inter se
parties and receipt dated 28.12.2020 issued by respondent bank, wherein
it has been stated that the loan account of Gulshan Kumar has been
closed under Rin Samadhan, 2021 and nothing remains to be recovered
from the above named person. He states that since the complainant Bank
has received its money, it has no objection, in case offence alleged to
have been committed by accused, is ordered to be compounded while
exercising power under S.147 of the Act.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
material available on record this court finds that since both the parties
have resolved to settle the dispute inter se them amicably, and
respondent bank has received its money, this court while exercising
power under S.147 of Act and taking note of the guidelines issued
in.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, sees no
difficulty in accepting the prayer for compounding of the offence made by
the accused.
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.
9. Petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all
pending applications.
.
Copy dasti..
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
September 9, 2021
(Vikrant)
r to
