Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tej Raj vs Laxmi Kant on 10 June, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No. 560 of 2023
Decided on: 10.06.2024
.
____________________________________________________
Tej Raj .........Petitioner
Versus
Laxmi Kant ...Respondent
____________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
____________________________________________________
For the petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Rohit, Advocate.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under section
397/401 Cr.P.C, lays challenge to judgment dated 11.09.2023
passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal
Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2023, affirming the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.02.2023 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banjar, District Kullu,
H.P., in Case No.381/19/16, whereby learned trial Court, while
holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of
having committed offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act'), convicted and sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and pay
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? .
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent-complainant
(hereinafter, 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the
.
record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
complainant) instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short Act) in the competent court
of law, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his
legal liability, issued cheque bearing No.000017, dated
21.07.2016, amounting to Rs. 4, 00,000/-, drawn at HDFC Bank,
Sainj Branch, Kullu, H.P, in favour of the respondent-complainant.
However, fact remains that aforesaid cheque on its presentation
was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account
of the accused. Since despite having received legal notice,
accused failed to make good the payment within the stipulated
time, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under
S. 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law.
3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence
adduced on record by the respective parties held accused guilty
of having committed the 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 judgment
of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court,
accused preferred an appeal before learned Sessions Judge,
.
Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, but same was dismissed
vide judgment dated 11.09.2023. In the aforesaid background,
the petitioner-accused approached this court in the instant
proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after setting aside
the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by
learned Courts below.
5. Vide order dated 19.10.2023, this Court suspended
substantive sentence imposed by learned trial Court upon the
accused, subject to deposit of 30% of compensation amount
within a period of four weeks.
6. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on
its own merit, petitioner has entered into the compromise with the
respondent, whereby they have resolved to settle their dispute
amicably interse them. On account of the compromise, petitioner
filed an application bearing Cr.MP No.1672 of 2024, under
Section 147 of the Act, praying therein for compounding the
offence.
7. This Court having taken note of the compromise arrived
interse parties, specifically called upon the parties to come
present for getting their statements recorded. On 7.5.2024,
complainant as well as petitioner-accused specifically stated on
oath before this Court that they of their own volition and without
.
there being any external pressure have entered into the
compromise. Respondent-complainant specifically stated before
this Court that he has received part of the entire compensation
amount awarded in his favour and rest of Rs. 1, 50,000/-
deposited before the learned trial Court be also ordered to be
released in favour of the respondent-complainant. He further
submitted that since petitioner has agreed to pay entire
compensation amount awarded by the Court below, he has no
objection in case prayer made in the instant petition for
compounding the offence, is accepted.
8. Having taken note of the fact that the parties have
compromised the matter and amount has been received by the
complainant, this court sees no impediment in accepting the
prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding of the
offence in light of S.147 of the Act and in terms of the guidelines
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v.
Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that court may compound the offence in those
cases also, where conviction has been recorded.
9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion made
hereinabove, instant matter is ordered to be compounded and
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned
.
Courts below are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner-accused
is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138
of the Act. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be
discharged.
10. Learned trial Court is directed to release sum of
Rs.1, 50,000/- alongwith up to date interest deposited by the
petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent- complainant, by
remitting the same in his saving account, details whereof shall be
furnished by learned counsel for the respondent- complaint within
a period of two weeks.
The petition is disposed of along with pending
applications, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
June, 10, 2024
(shankar)
