Himachal Pradesh High Court
Uma Devi & Anr vs Liaq Ram & Anr on 1 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision Nos. 346 & 347of 2024
Date of Decision: 01.10.2024
__________________________________________________________________________
1. Cr. Revision No. 346 of 2024
Uma Devi & Anr. .........Petitioners
Versus
Liaq Ram & Anr. .......Respondents
2. Cr. Revision No. 347 of 2024
Rahul .........Petitioner
Versus
Liaq Ram & Anr. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr. Ankush Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.
1(a) to1(e).
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, J. (Oral)
[
Instant criminal revision petitions filed under Section 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment(s) dated
13.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P., in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 15-S/10 of 2023 and 14-S/10 of 2023, affirming the
judgment(s) of conviction and order(s) of sentence dated 22.02.2023 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.,
in criminal complaint Nos. 192 of 2018 and 520 of 2018, whereby learned
Court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter 'accused')
guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the
2024:HHC:9441
Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') convicted and sentenced him
to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay
compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- to the LR No. (i) of respondent
No. 1-complainant (hereinafter 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are
that complainant (for short 'complainant') filed 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, had issued cheques
amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- (in both the cases) in his
favour, but fact remains that aforesaid cheques on their presentation were
dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the
accused. Since, despite having received demand notice accused failed to
make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice,
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 material adduced on record
by the respective parties, vide judgment(s)/order(s) 22.02.2023, held the
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(s)
of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an
appeal in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, H.P.,
which came to be dismissed vide judgment(s) dated 13.03.2024 as a
consequence of which, judgment(s) of conviction recorded by the learned
2024:HHC:9441
trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present
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. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own
merit, parties have entered into compromise, whereby they have resolved to
settle the dispute amicably inter se them.
6. Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the
accused, states that accused is ready and willing to make payment of
entire compensation amount awarded by the learned Court below. He
states that sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- stands paid to the complainant by the
accused and in case sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- lying deposited with the learned
trial Court are ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, this
Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to
compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charge framed
against him.
7. Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate, while putting in appearance on
behalf of complainant states that parties have compromised the matter
amicably. He states that complainant has received sum of Rs. 4,20,000/-
from the accused today and in case sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- lying deposited
with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the
complainant, complainant shall have no objection in compounding the
offence. His statement is taken on record.
8. Since parties have resolved to settle the dispute amicably inter
se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that
2024:HHC:9441
complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of
his being released the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court,
this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of
the accused for compounding the 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 discussion made hereinabove as
well as law taken into consideration, present matter is ordered to be
compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated
13.03.2024 and 22.02.2023, passed by the learned Courts below are
quashed and set-aside and the 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. The petition is disposed of alongwith
pending applications, if any.
10. Amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered
to be released in favour of the complainant by remitting the same in his
saving bank account, details whereof, shall be furnished by learned
counsel representing the complainant within a period of one week.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
October 01,2024
(sunil)
