Himachal Pradesh High Court

_______________________________________________________ vs H.P. State Co-Operative Agriculture & ... on 2 September, 2024

Author: Sandeep Sharma

Bench: Sandeep Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2024 Date of Decision: 02.09.2024 _______________________________________________________ Tejinder Singh .......Petitioner

Versus

H.P. State Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank ... Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1

For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):

Cr.MP(M) No.1934 of 2024

By way of instant application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, prayer has been made on behalf of the applicant-

petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the accompanying criminal

revision petition, which is barred by limitation.

2. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate has put in

appearance on behalf of the respondent. He states that he does not

intend to file any reply to the application and shall have no objection in

case prayer made in the application is allowed.

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

3. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the

application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, this Court is

convinced and satisfied that delay in maintaining the accompanying

criminal revision petition is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather

same has occurred on account of the circumstances, which were

completely beyond the control of the applicant/petitioner and as such,

delay of 54 days in filing the criminal revision petition, which in my

considered view has been sufficiently explained, is condoned. The

petition be registered. The application stands disposed of.

Criminal Revision No. 566 of 2024

4. Notice. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, Advocate, appears

and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent.

5. Instant petition filed under Section 442 of the Bharatiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated

05.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla,

H.P in Cr. Appeal No. 45-S/10 of 2023, affirming the judgment of

conviction dated 22.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 25.04.2023

passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, District Shimla,

Himachal Pradesh in criminal complaint No.200-3 of 2019, whereby

learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused (hereinafter,

'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short '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-bank (hereinafter, 'complainant').

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

record are that the complainant instituted a complaint under Section

138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that

cheque bearing No.641571, dated 03.08.2019, amounting to

Rs.82,500/- drawn on PNB Bank, Janedghat, Shimla, Himachal

Pradesh, having been issued by the 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, which

subsequently, 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 accordingly, convicted

and sentenced him as per description given herein above.

7. 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.

8. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its

own merits, petitioner-accused has amicably settled the matter with

the complainant, whereby he has paid the entire amount of

compensation in terms of judgment passed by the learned Court

below to the complainant.

9. After having entered into compromise, accused has filed

an application under Section 147 of the Act, praying therein to

compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges

framed against him, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to

10. Today during proceedings of the case, learned counsel

for the petitioner, on instructions, states before this Court that

accused has paid the entire amount of compensation to the

complainant awarded by learned trial Court. He states that on account

of aforesaid amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court,

while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to

compound the offence and acquit the accused from the charges

framed against him.

11. Mr. Narender Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the

complainant, on instructions of the complainant, submits that

complainant shall have no objection in compounding the offence.

12. Having taken note of the fact that entire amount of

compensation has been paid to the complainant and complainant 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.

13. 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 learned Courts below are 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.

14. Since petitioner is behind bars, Registry is directed to

prepare the release warrants and send the same to the

Superintendent of Model Central Jail, Kanda, forthwith, enabling

aforesaid authority to release the petitioner immediately, subject to

verification that he is not required in other case.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 02,2024 (sunil)

MAM DN: C=IN, O=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, OU=HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA, Phone=36bb51250baa5a51385bbc5 a5b425314fae384931dc610a63165c

TA 9febd25094e, PostalCode=171001, S=Himachal Pradesh, SERIALNUMBER=2987d79d0aae1f 98d0fd5663fb63f715a53ab1add092f a3617b76bdc094f63d9, CN=MAMTA RAO

RAO Reason: I am approving this document Location: