Himachal Pradesh High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Sees Ram & Another on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 604 of 2022
Decided on: 11th January, 2023
Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
.
Sees Ram & another ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate.
(Petitioner present in person)
For respondent No. 1: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate.
(Shri Naresh Sharma, legal representative
of Shri Sees Ram Sharma (complainant)
present in person)
For respondent No. 2: Mr. Harinder Singh Rawat, Additional
Advocate General.
______________________________________________________________________
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. (oral)
Present revision petition has been filed assailing
judgment, dated 28.02.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge(I), Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 3S/10 of 2020, whereby
judgment/order dated 29.11.2019/20.12.2019, passed by Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Case
No. 5533 of 2013/14, convicting and sentencing petitioneraccused,
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to undergo simple
imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of
Rs.5,50,000/ to the complainant, has been affirmed.
2. The matter stands amicably settled between the parties. In
this regard, statements of petitionerNaresh Kumar and rspondent
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
No.1Naresh Sharma, who is legal representative of deceasedSees Ram
Sharma (complainant), were recorded separately and placed on the file.
3. Naresh Kumarpetitioner has stated that in the case filed
.
by late Sees Ram Sharma, who was father of respondentNaresh
Sharma, compensation of Rs.5,50,000/ (rupees five lac fifty thousand)
has been awarded, which is payable by him. Sees Ram Sharma has
expired and matter has been amicably settled with his son Naresh
Sharma. As per settlement, Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lac) deposited
by him in the trial Court, i.e., Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateII,
Shimla is to be released in favour of Shri Naresh Sharma and another
sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lac) shall be paid by him through
post dated cheque worth Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lac), dated
30.08.2023, drawn at Punjab National Bank, Gumma, and balance
amount of compensation has been paid by him to Shri Naresh Sharma
and after encashment of cheque given by him and remittance of the
amount from the Court, nothing shall be payable by him to Shri
Naresh Sharma. He has further stated that in case of dishonour of
cheque, apart from legal proceedings, he shall also be liable to face
contempt proceedings for violation of undertaking given by him
regarding the encashment of cheque dated 30.08.2023. In that
eventuality, respondentNaresh Sharma shall also be entitled to revive
the present case.
4. Naresh Sharma (legal representative of deceased
complainantSees Ram Sharma) in his statement endorsing the
compromise entered between him and petitioner, has further stated
that he has received a post dated cheque and has no objection for
quashing the complaint filed by his father for compounding the present
.
case.
5. PetitionerNaresh Kumar and respondent No. 1Naresh
Sharma had stated that they have deposed in the Court out of their
free will, consent and also without any kind of threat, coercion or
pressure etc.
6. Consequently, respondent No. 1Naresh Sharma, who is
legal representative of deceased complainantSees Ram Sharma, is
permitted to withdraw the complaint and the matter is compounded
and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque, under Section138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, is treated to be withdrawn and
judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are
quashed and set aside. Petitioneraccused is acquitted of the
accusation framed against him.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
has made payment to respondent No. 1 by arranging money from his
near and dear and still he has to arrange Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one
lac) for ensuring encashment of post dated cheque given by him to
respondent No. 1. He has further stated that keeping in view the poor
financial condition of the petitioner and also 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,the petitioner may be exempted from payment of compounding
fee.
.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
instead of 15% of the cheque amount, it shall be appropriate to levy
Rs.5,000/ as compounding fee upon the petitioneraccused.
Accordingly, he is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/, as
compounding fee, with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla,
within six weeks from today and place receipt thereof on record of this
petition. r
9. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with
the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, within the aforesaid
period, consequential action shall follow to recover the said amount as
fine under Cr.P.C.
10. As per the record, Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lac) has been
deposited by the petitioner in the Trial Court. Therefore, Trial Court is
directed to release the said amount, in favour of respondent No. 1
Naresh Sharma, alongwith up to date interest, if any accrued thereon,
by remitting the same in his bank account, on supply of details thereof
alongwith copy of this order to the Trial Court without issuing any
notice to petitionerNaresh Kumar (accused).
11. In case post dated cheque issued by the petitioner in
favour of respondent No. 1, as aforesaid, is dishonoured, the present
proceedings shall revive on the application of respondent No. 1Naresh
Sharma and in addition to above, the petitioner shall also be liable to
contempt of Court for giving false undertaking.
12. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also
.
pending application(s), if any.
13. Application, alongwith compromise, stated to have been
filed by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court, be also taken on
record and the same shall also be deemed to have been disposed of in
terms of aforesaid order.
14. Parties are permitted to use downloaded copy of this order
from the High Court website and concerned authority/trial Court shall
not insist for certified copy. Passing of order may be verified from High
Court website or otherwise.
( Vivek Singh Thakur )
11th
January, 2023 Judge
(virender)
