Sh. Parkash Thakur vs M/S Jain Trading Company
2023 Latest Caselaw 5796 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No.8 of 2020 Date of Decision: 15.05.2023

.

_______________________________________________________

Sh. Parkash Thakur .......Petitioner Versus

M/s Jain Trading Company ... Respondent

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Amar Deep Singh, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Instant petition filed under Section 397 read with Section

401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment

dated 3.10.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge(I)

Shimla, District Shimla, H.P in Cr. Appeal No. 9-S/10 of 2019,

affirming the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2019 and order of

sentence dated 7.3.2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in complaint No.396-3 of 2014, 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, convicted him to pay fine to

the tune of Rs.16,000/- to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter,

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

'complainant') and in default of payment of fine to undergo one

month simple imprisonment.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

.

record are that the respondent instituted a complaint under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in the

competent court of law, alleging therein that cheque bearing

No.022319, dated 4.8.2014, amounting to Rs. 10,000/- drawn on

UCO Bank Kasumpti, District Shimla, H.P., having been issued by the

petitioner-accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was

dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of

the accused. Since, despite having received legal notice, accused

failed to make the payment good well within stipulated time,

complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138

of the Act in the competent court of law.

3. Learned trial court on the basis of evidence adduced on

record by the respective parties, held the accused guilty of having

committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and accordinigly

convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

4. Though, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial

Court, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional

Sessions Judge (I) Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., but same was

dismissed. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this

court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after

setting aside judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed

.

by both the learned Courts below.

5. Vide order dated 4.01.2020, this court suspended the

substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial

Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 15% of the

cheque amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-

with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial

Court. Before aforesaid order could be complied with, parties have

entered into the compromise, whereby they have resolved to settle

dispute amicably interse them.

6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned

counsel representing the petitioner states that entire amount of

compensation/fine stands paid to the respondent-complainant and as

such, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act,

may proceed to compound the offence.

7. Learned counsel representing the respondent-

complainant, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to

compromise arrived interse parties, states that since entire

compensation amount has been received by the respondent-

complainant, this Court may allow the prayer made on behalf of the

petitioner for compounding of the offence.

8. Having taken note of the fact that the parties have

.

compromised the matter and amount has been received by the

respondent-complainant, this Court sees no impediment in accepting

the prayer made on behalf of petitioner-accused for compounding the

offence, while exercising power under section 147 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed

Babalal H.(2015)5 SCC 663, has categorically held that Court, while

exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to

compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts

below.

9. Consequently, in view of above, prayer made on behalf

of the accused is allowed and offence committed by him under S.138

of the Act is ordered to be compounded. Judgments of conviction and

order of sentence passed by learned courts below are quashed and

set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence under S.138 of the Act.

However, present petitioner-accused is directed to pay an amount of

Rs. 5000/- to the respondent-complainant on account of litigation

charges within a period of two months from today, failing which, he

shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as

proceedings under Contempt of Court.

10. In the aforesaid terms, instant petition is disposed of,

alongwith all pending applications. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the

accused are discharged.

.

                                                      (Sandeep Sharma),
                                                             Judge
    May 15, 2023





          (shankar)




                         r        to