Angat Ram vs Hans Raj &
2022 Latest Caselaw 2003 HP

                                     1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                   ON THE 19th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
                                BEFORE




                                                             .
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





                 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.317 of 2021
    Between:-





         ANGAT RAM
         S/O SH. PARAM RAM,
         R/O VILLAGE DADOH,
         P.O. DHABAN, TEHSIL BALH,
         DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
                                                               .....PETITIONER





         (BY SH.SURENDER VERMA, ADVOCATE)

         AND       r
    1.   HANS RAJ

         S/O SHRI BHANGU RAM,
         R/O VILLAGE MALWANA, P.O. SALWANA,
         TEHSIL SUNDER NAGAR,
         DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.


         (BY SH.JAGAN NATH, ADVOCATE)

         (RESPONDENT NO.1        HANS      RAJ,     IS
         PRESENT IN PERSON)






    2.   STATE OF H.P.                                      ...RESPONDENTS

         (BY SH.RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
         GENERAL)





         Whether approved for reporting?


                This petition coming on for presence of parties this
    day, the Court passed the following:
                            ORDER

Present Revision Petition has been filed, assailing

judgment dated 31.07.2021, passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal

Appeal No.38 of 2016, titled as Angat Ram vs. Hans Raj &

another, whereby judgment/order dated 11.03.2016, passed by

learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1,

Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.268-

.

I/2011-195-III/2011, titled as Hans Raj vs. Angat Ram, convicting

and sentencing the petitioner-accused to undergo simple

imprisonment for two years and to pay compensation of

`3,00,000/- to the complainant, has been affirmed.

2. Petitioner-Angat Ram and respondent No.1-Hans Raj-

complainant, are present in person in the Court today, who have

been identified by their respective learned counsel. Their

Statements, on oath, have been recorded today in the Court.

2. In his statement, respondent No.1-Hans Raj has

stated that he is complainant in Criminal Complaint Nos.266-

I/2011-193-III/2011 and 268-I/2011-195-III/2011, both titled as

Hans Raj vs. Angat Ram, and keeping in view the poor financial

condition of petitioner Angat Ram, he has settled the dispute for

payment of `95,000/- only, and in turn, he has agreed to

withdraw the complaints in both cases. He has further stated

that petitioner-Angat Ram has paid a sum of `70,000/- in cash

and `25,000/- has been deposited by him in the trial Court in

Criminal Complaint No.266-I/2011-193-III/2011, titled as Hans Raj

vs. Angat Ram, and as per compromise, said amount is to be

released in his favour. In view of compromise, he has prayed for

compounding the case after granting permission to withdraw the

complaints and directing the trial Court to remit `25,000/- in his

account details whereof, shall be supplied by him.

3. In his statement, petitioner-Angat Ram endorsing

the statement of complainant-Hans Raj to be true and correct

.

has stated that matter has been amicably settled in both the

complaints and he has paid a sum of `70,000/- to complainant-

Hans Raj and `25,000/- has been deposited by him in the trial

Court in Criminal Complaint No.266-I/2011-193-III/2011, titled as

Hans Raj vs. Angat Ram, and in terms of the compromise, the

said amount is to be released in favour of complainant-Hans Raj

and he has no objection for that. He has further stated that

keeping in view his poor financial condition, compounding fee

may kindly be exempted.

4. Petitioner as well as respondent No.1 have stated

that they have deposed in this Court, out of their free will,

consent and without any external pressure, coercion or threat of

any kind.

5. Consequently, in view of statements of private

parties endorsing compromise arrived at between the them,

complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act is permitted to be withdrawn

and matter is compounded 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.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner is facing poor financial condition and is not able to pay

compounding fee @ 15% and, therefore, a prayer has been made

by learned counsel for exempting the 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.

7. The compensation amount in both cases was

`5,50,000/-, but keeping in view the poor financial condition of

the petitioner, complainant had agreed to settle the dispute for

`95,000/- which substantiates poor financial condition of the

petitioner. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case for exempting the

compounding fee and accordingly the same is exempted.

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

so also pending application(s), if any.

9. Private parties are permitted to produce a copy of

this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of

Himachal Pradesh, before the trial Court/authorities concerned,

and the said Court/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.

April 19, 2022 (Purohit)