Mohammad vs State Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 2258 HP

                                                               .

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA





                       ON THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                                   BEFORE

               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, JUDGE



    Between:
                    r            to
                     CRIMINAL REVISION No. 102 OF 2022.



    RAJEEV MOHAMMAD, S/O SH. FIROJ

    MOHAMMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RARU
    (DINAK), P.O. UPPER    BEHLI,   TEHSIL
    SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

                                                           ........PETITIONER



    ( BY SHRI G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE)




                       AND

    STATE BANK OF INDIA, SUNDERNAGAR,





    DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. THROUGH ITS
    MANAGER,    TEHSIL   SUNDERNAGAR,
    DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.





                                                           ..........RESPONDENT


    (BY SHRI ARVIND SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

                 This petition coming on for admission after         notice this

    day, the Court passed the following:-

                              ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner

has paid entire due amount to the respondent-Bank and the bank has

issued a certificate dated 21.02.2022 in this behalf. Confronted with this,

.

learned counsel for the respondent-Bank does not dispute the facts so

stated.

2. Petitioner is also present in the Court today. Learned

counsel for the petitioner, on instructions states that the matter may

kindly be ordered to be compounded in view of the entire payment

made by him to the Bank. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank has

fairly submitted that his client will have no objection in case the matter

is ordered to be compounded as no subsisting claim of the bank survives

against the petitioner.

3. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument

Act for which the petitioner has been convicted is otherwise

compoundable. The nature of dispute between the parties is private. It

pertains only to the recovery of amount due to the bank from the

petitioner. No prejudice shall be caused to the interest of justice or to

the society at large, in case, the parties are allowed to compound the

offence. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is allowed. The offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, for which the

petitioner has been convicted vide judgment dated 07.09.2016, passed by

learnedAdditional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Sundernagar,

District Mandi, H.P., in Complaint No. 87-1 of 2014 and affirmed vide

judgment dated 06.01.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions

.

Judge, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P in Cr. Appeal No. 108 of 2016,

is allowed to be compounded, subject to the petitioner depositing a sum

of Rs. 25,000/- with the State Legal Services Authority, Himachal

Pradesh, within eight weeks from today, failing which the composition

by the petitioner.

r to so allowed shall stand nullified for non performance of the requisite part

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner had

deposited Rs. One lac before learned Trial Court, in pursuance to the

order passed by the learned Appellate Court. Since the petitioner has

already satisfied the entire claim of respondent, the said amount be

ordered to be refunded, in his favour.

5. Ordered accordingly. The amount, if any, lying in deposit

before the learned Trial Court, at the instance of the petitioner be

released to him forthwith.

6. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of, so also

the pending application(s), if any.

List for compliance on 30.06.2022.

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge April 26th, 2022 (sushma)