Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kamal Dev (Aged About 39 Years) vs Sayed on 24 September, 2021
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
ON THE 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 39 OF 2021
Between:-
KAMAL DEV (AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS)
S/O SH. KRISHAN CHAND,
CHAIRMAN DEV INSITUTUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY MAIN BAZAR, BHOTA,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR HP
....PETITIONER
(BY SH. P.M. NEGI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HEM RAJ PATHANIA,
S/O LATE SH. L.R. PATHANIA,
R/O HOUSE NO. 450, WARD NO.1,
ANU, TEH. & DISTT.HAMIRPUR HP
2 STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR HP
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SH. ANUBHAV CHOPRA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-1)
(BY SH.RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR R-2)
Whether approved for reporting?
This Petition coming on for admission this day, this Court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Present revision petition has been filed
assailing judgment dated 10.11.2020 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur H.P., in Cr.
Appeal No. 27 of 2018 whereby judgment/order dated
01.05.2018/2.05.2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial
.
Magistrate, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, in Complaint No.
37-1/2015, convicting and sentencing the
petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three months and to pay compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.
2. Learned
representing respondent No.1
counsel for respondent,
instructions, has stated, in his statement, that he is
Hem Raj Pathania and he
under
has been instructed to withdraw the complaint subject to
release of entire amount of compensation of Rs.1 lac, 50%
whereof has been deposited by petitioner in the trial Court
and 50% has been deposited in the Registry of this Court,
in favour of respondent No.1 and thereafter, respondent
No.1 is ready to withdraw the complaint for compounding
the case. He has stated that he has deposed strictly in
consonance with instructions imparted to him by
respondent No.1.
3 Under instructions of petitioner to make the
statement, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
endorsed the statement made by learned counsel for the
respondent as true and correct and has further stated that
the petitioner has deposited Rs.50,000/- in the trial Court
and Rs.50,000/- in the Registry of this Court and as per
instructions imparted to him by petitioner, matter has been
.
settled and as per compromise, the amount which has
been deposited by petitioner in the trial Court as well as in
the Registry of this Court, is to be ordered to be released in
favour of respondent No.1 and in turn, respondent No.1 has
agreed to withdraw the complaint. He has also been
instructed to pray for compounding the case with further
prayer to impose lesser compounding fee. He has further
stated that he has made the statement strictly in
consonance with instructions imparted to him by the
petitioner.
4 Consequently, respondent/complainant is
permitted to withdraw the complaint and matter is
compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of
cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is
treated 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.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also
prayed for exempting the 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 Legal Services Authority vs.
.
Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690, wherein
it has been held that Court may reduce compounding fee
for given facts and circumstances of a particular case,
present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee.
6. Considering facts and circumstances of the
case and keeping in view the prayer made on behalf of the
petitioner, I am of the opinion that it is an appropriate case
to impose lesser compounding fee. Therefore, petitioner is
directed to deposit compounding fee of Rs.2,000/- instead
of 15% of cheque amount, with the H.P. State Legal
Services Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today.
7. After depositing compounding fee/cost,
petitioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record
of this petition. In case of default in depositing
compounding fee/cost with H.P. State Legal Services
Authority, Shimla within stipulated period, the judgments
of conviction and sentence shall automatically revive.
8. Registry of this Court is directed to release
Rs.50,000/-, along with up-to-date interest, in favour of
respondent Hem Raj Pathania, respondent No.1, by
remitting the same in his bank account, details whereof shall
be supplied by respondent No.1 himself or through his counsel.
9. Trial Court is also directed to release the
amount of Rs.50,000/-, deposited by petitioner Kamal Dev
.
along with interest, if any, accrued thereupon, in favour of
respondent/complainant Hem Raj Pathania without issuing
notice to petitioner/accused Kamal Dev, on production of
copy of this judgment by remitting the same in bank
account of complainant Hem Raj Pathania, respondent
10.
r to
No.1, details whereof shall be supplied by respondent No.1
himself or through his counsel.
Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid
terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
11 The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of
order downloaded from the High Court website and the
concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy of the
order, however, they may verify the order from the High
Court website or otherwise.
Copy of this judgment be sent to H.P. State
Legal Services Authority, Shimla for compliance.
September 24, 2021 (Vivek Singh Thakur)
(ms) Judge
