Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 25.07.2024 vs Krishna Traders And Others on 25 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:5852
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.326 of 2024
Date of Decision: 25.07.2024
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Amol Rattan
.........Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Traders and Others
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay K. Arora, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kshitij Thakur, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition, lays challenge to judgment
dated 27.2.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District
Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 56-S/10 of 2023, affirming judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 1.11.2023, passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in
Case No. 56-3 of 2017, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the
petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the "Act"), convicted
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the
complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are
that respondent-complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of
the Act, in the competent court of law, alleging therein that accused with a
.
view to discharge his liability issued cheque amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- in
favour of the complainant, but fact remains that aforesaid cheque, on its
presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused failed to make
payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice,
respondent/complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings before the
competent Court of law under Section 138 of the Act.
3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record
by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 1.11.2023, held the
petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under
Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as per
the description given hereinabove.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction recorded by the Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the
court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.2.2024,
as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned
trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present
petitioner-accused has approached this Court by way of instant
proceedings, seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the judgments
of conviction recorded by the courts below.
5. Vide order dated 10.6.2024, this Court suspended the
.
substantive sentence imposed by the court below subject to the petitioner's
depositing entire amount of the compensation and furnishing personal
bonds within four weeks.
6. Today, during proceedings of the case, Mr. Vijay K. Arora,
learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has entered into
compromise with respondent-complainant, whereby parties have resolved
to settle their dispute for a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,70,000/-. He states
that sum of Rs.60,000/- is lying deposited with the learned trial Court,
whereas Rs.1,15,000/- has been brought by the petitioner, which has been
further handed over to the complainant in the Court, as such, this Court
while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may compound the
offence and acquit the accused.
7. Respondent-complainant Mukesh Chand Sharma, who is
present in the Court and duly represented by Mr. Kshitij Thakur, Advocate,
states on oath that he of his own volition and without there being any
external pressure, has entered into compromise with the petitioner-accused
for lump sum amount of Rs.1,75,000/-. He states that today, he has
received sum of Rs.1,15,000/- in the Court and in case, sum of
Rs.60,000/- lying deposited before the Court below is released in his
favour, he shall have no objection in compounding the offence and acquittal
of the accused of the charges farmed against him under Section 138 of the
.
Act. His statement made on Oath is taken on record.
8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of
compensation stands paid or agreed to be paid to the respondent-
complainant and respondent has no objection in compounding the offence,
this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of
the petitioner for compounding of offence while exercising power under
Section 147 of the Act as well as in terms of guidelines issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5
SCC 663, wherein it has been categorically held that court, while
exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound
the offence even after recording of conviction.
9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to
be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated
1.11.2023 and 27.2.2024, passed by the Courts below are quashed and set
aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against
him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Bail
bonds, if any, are discharged. Learned Court below is also directed to
release sum of Rs.60,000/- lying deposited before it, on filing appropriate
application by the respondent/complainant, detailing therein his saving
bank account details. The petition is disposed of along with pending
applications, if any.
.
July 25, 2024 (Sandeep Sharma),
(Rajeev Raturi) Judge
r to
