Himachal Pradesh High Court
Singh vs Shivani Chauhan on 3 January, 2022
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 3rd DAY JANUARY, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 325 OF 2019
Between:-
SHIVANI CHAUHAN, W/O SH. BHOOP
SINGH, R/O VILLAGE MANJH, P.O.
JACHH, TEHSIL CHACHYOT, DISTRICT
MANDI, H.P. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
r ..........PETITIONER
(BY MR. TARUN PATHAK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. KAPOOR SINGH, S/O SH. TULSI
RAM, R/O VILLAGE MANJH, P.O.
JACHH, TEHSIL CHACHYOT,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
2. STATE OF HP.
........RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
M/S ADARSH SHARMA, SUMESH RAJ AND
SANJEEV SOOD, ADDL. AGS FOR R-2)
___________________________________________________________
Whether approved for reporting:
This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the
Court passed the following:-
ORDER
By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has
challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Chachiot, at Gohar, District Shimla, H.P.
in criminal complaint Case No. 105-I of 2017/26-III/2017, titled
as Kapoor Singh vs. Shivani Chauhan, which criminal case
.
stood disposed of by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated
29.06.2018, by sentencing the present petitioner, vide order of
sentence dated 12.07.2018, to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of three months and to pay compensation to the tune of
`65,000/- to the complainant, as well as the judgment passed
by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Mandi,
District Mandi, H.P., in appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 22 of
2018, titled as Shivani Chauhan vs. Kapoor Singh and another,
dated 24.06.2019, vide which, the judgment passed by learned
Trial Court was upheld by the learned Appellate Court and the
appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment
passed by learned Trial Court was dismissed.
2. The Court stands informed that during the pendency
of the revision petition, the matter has been amicably settled
between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Out of the total
compensation amount of `65,000/-, a sum of `13,000/- has
been deposited before the learned Trial Court and a sum of
`20,000/- with the Registry of this Court. Today, a sum of
`33,000/- (Rs. Thirty Three Thousand Only) has been paid in
cash by the petitioner to respondent No. 1 in the open Court,
which amount is acknowledged by respondent No. 1. This fact is
not disputed by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1.
.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in
view of said development, it will be in the interest of justice, in
case, this Court exercises its power of compounding the offence
in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 Supreme
Court Cases 663. He further submits that as the petitioner has
made good the amount due to the respondent, it will be in the
interest of justice, in case, in terms of para-25 of the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (supra), the compounding fee
is modified, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the
case and the financial condition of the petitioner. He assures the
Court that, in case, the offence is compounded by this Court,
then, the compounding fee, as shall be ordered by the Court,
shall be paid by the petitioner within the time so granted by the
Court.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and
taking into consideration the fact that the matter, which led to
filing of the criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, now stands settled between the parties, this
Court orders the compounding of the offence in question,
subject to the payment of compounding fee at the rate of 10% of
the cheque amount by the petitioner, which shall be deposited
with State Legal Service Authority, Shimla, within a period of
.
three months from today. As a consequence, the judgment as
well as order of sentence passed by learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. dated
29.06.2018/12.07.2018, as also the judgment passed in appeal
by learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Mandi, H.P. dated
24.06.2019, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by learned Trial Court, are ordered to be set
aside. Let a compliance affidavit in this regard be thereafter filed
by the petitioner within two weeks, with the Registrar (Judicial).
5. As prayed for by learned Counsel for respondent No.
1, amount already lying deposited with learned Court below as
well as in the Registry of this Court in this case, is ordered to be
released in favour of respondent No. 1, on his moving
appropriate application in this regard.
6. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so
also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
January 03, 2022
(narender)
