Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Nanda vs Bal Krishan And Another on 25 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No.97 of 2024
Date of Decision: 25.07.2024
.
_______________________________________________________
Rajesh Nanda .......Petitioner
Versus
Bal Krishan and another ... Respondent
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondents:
r to
Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate.
Mr. Arun Kaushal,
respondent No.1.
Advocate, for
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional
Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General,
for respondent No.2/State.
_______________________________________________________
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 30.12.2023 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at
Dharamshala, H.P in Cr. Appeal No.17-D-X/2022, affirming the
judgment of conviction dated 30.6.2022 and order of sentence dated
11.07.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in complaint No.298-
II/2014, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence
punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted
.
and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six
months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
respondent -complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
record are that the respondent-complainant 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.90649, dated 30.04.2012, amounting to Rs. 50,000/- drawn on
HDFC Bank Branch Kangra, having been issued by the petitioner-
accused towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on
the ground that accused has closed the account. 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 Sessions
Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., but same was dismissed vide
judgment dated 30.12.2023. 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 01.03.2024, this Court suspended the
substantive sentence imposed upon the accused by learned trial
Court, subject to the petitioner-accused depositing 30% of the
compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 40,000/-, with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of
learned trial Court.
6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned
counsel representing the petitioner states that the petitioner has
entered into the compromise with the respondent-complainant,
whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute amicably. He
states that today sum of Rs. 57,500/- has been handed over to the
complainant in the Court, whereas sum of Rs. 42,500/- lying
deposited with the learned trial Court can be ordered to be released in
favour of the respondent-complainant and thereafter this Court, while
exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, may proceed to
compound the offence and acquit the accused of charge framed
.
against him under Section 138 of the Act.
7. Respondent-Complainant Bal Krishan, who is present in
Court, states on oath before this Court that he of his own volition and
without there being any external pressure has entered into the
compromise with the petitioner. He states that today, he has received
sum of Rs. 57,500/- in cash from the petitioner and in case sum of
Rs. 42,500/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to
be released in his favour, he shall have no objection in compounding
the offence and acquitting the petitioner-accused of the charge
framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. His statement is
taken on record.
8. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of
compensation has been 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 by the courts below.
.
9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is
ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction
and order of sentence 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.
10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in
unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own
amount, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 5% of the cheque
amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding
fee as well as Rs. 10,000/- as litigation charges to the respondent-
Complainant within a period of six weeks, failing which, he shall
render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of
the Court.
11. Learned trial Court is directed to release the amount lying
deposited with it in favour of the respondent-complainant on his filing
appropriate application.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 25,2024
(shankar)
