Decided On: December 29 vs Ganga Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 11726 HP

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                     Criminal revision No. 718 of 2022
                                      Decided on: December 29, 2022
     ________________________________________________________
     Chaman Lal                                        .........Petitioner
                                    Versus




                                                                    .
     Ganga Ram                                          ...Respondent





     ________________________________________________________
     Coram
     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
     Whether approved for reporting1? Yes.





     ________________________________________________________
     For the petitioner:     Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate.

     For the respondent:            Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate.

     ________________________________________________________





     Sandeep Sharma, J.

CMP(M) No. 2748 of 2022

By way of instant application filed under S.5 of Limitation Act,

prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant for condonation of

delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition, which is

barred by limitation.

2. Pursuant to notice issued in the instant proceedings, Mr.

Rahul Thakur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of

respondent. He states that he does not intend to file reply to the

application and has no objection in case, prayer made in the

application for condonation of delay is accepted and criminal revision

petition is decided on its own merit.

3. Having taken note of fair stand of learned counsel for the

respondent and averments contained in the application, this court finds

that delay in filing the accompanying criminal revision petition is neither

Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .

intentional nor willful, rather owing to the circumstances, which were

completely beyond the control of the applicant, as such, delay of 244

days, which otherwise stands sufficiently explained, is condoned.

.

Application stands disposed of. Application stands disposed of.

Criminal revision petition be registered.

Cr. Revision No. 718 of 2022

4. By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Ss.

397/401 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 10.3.2022

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal

Pradesh in Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2021, affirming judgment of conviction

and order of sentence dated 5.10.2021 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr. Complaint No.

2222/2013 (977 of 2013) titled Ganga Ram. v. Chaman Lal, whereby

learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter,

'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under S.138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act;) convicted and

sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 18 months and pay

compensation to the tune of Rs..6.00 Lakh to the

respondent/complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant').

5. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record,

are that the complainant instituted proceedings under S.138 of the Act

in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, District

Kullu, alleging therein that he had advanced Rs.3.50 Lakh as loan to

the accused on his request. He alleged that. with a view to discharge

his liability, accused issued cheque bearing No. 001014 dated

5.4.2011 in the sum of Rs.3.50 Lakh drawn at Kangra Central Co-

operative Bank Limited Manali, but the fact remains that the aforesaid

cheque, on its presentation, was dishonoured on account of insufficient

.

funds. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused failed to

make payment of cheque amount, within the time stipulated in the legal

notice, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S.

138 of the Act.

6. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced 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, vide judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 5.10.2021

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial Court,

accused preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, but

the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 10.3.2022. In the

aforesaid background, accused has approached this court, praying

therein for his acquittal after setting aside judgments of conviction and

order of sentence recoded by learned courts below.

8. Before the case at hand, could be heard and decided on

merit, petitioner filed CrMP No. 4067 of 2022, under S.147 of the Act

praying therein to compound the offence in view of compromise

arrived inter se parties.

9. Apart from above, record reveals that, while filing revision,

accused also placed on record compromise arrived at between the

parties, after recoding of judgments of conviction and order of sentence

.

by learned courts below. Since there was delay in maintaining the

criminal revision petition, this court at first instance, ordered issuance

of notice on delay application on 19.12.2022. On 26.12.2022, Mr.

Rahul Thakur, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the respondent

and fairly acknowledged the factum with regard to compromise arrived

inter se parties. On that day, complainant Ganga Ram, also came

present in the court and stated before this court on oath that he of his

volition and without there being any external pressure has entered into

compromise with the accused and has received Rs.2.00 Lakh from the

accused as full and final settlement. Respondent further stated that on

account of settlement arrived inter se them, he intends to withdraw

from prosecution and shall have no objection in case conviction of

petitioner is set aside. His statement recorded on 26.12.2022 is on

record.

10. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the

petitioner states that since the parties have resolved to settle the

dispute inter se them amicably and in terms of compromise, Rs.2.00

Lakh has been received by complainant,, this court while exercising

power under S. 147 of the Act and guidelines framed by Hon'ble Apex

Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663,

may proceed to compound the offence and acquit the accused of the

charge framed against him under S.138 of the Act.

11. While fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to

.

amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, learned counsel for the

complainant states that since Rs. 2.00 Lakh has been received by the

complainant, he shall have no objection, in case prayer made on behalf

of the accused for compounding of offence is accepted.

12. Having taken note of the fact that the parties have resolved

to settle the dispute inter se them amicably and in terms of

compromise, Rs.2.00 Lakh stands received by the complainant, there

appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf

of the accused for compounding of offence, while exercising power

under S.147 of the Act and guidelines framed in Damodar S. Prabhu,

supra, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that prayer for

compounding of the offence, can be accepted even after recording of

conviction.

13. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Judgments of

conviction and order of sentence passed by learned courts below are

quashed and set aside and accused is acquitted of the charge framed

against him. Since the accused is in jail, Registry is directed to prepare

and send the release warrants of the accused forthwith, to the

Superintendent of Jail, Model Central Jail, Nahan, District Sirmaur,

Himachal Pradesh, via email/fax.

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge December 29, 2022 (Vikrant)