Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 04.09.2024 vs H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited And ... on 4 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:7907
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.565 of 2024
Date of Decision: 04.09.2024
__________________________________________________________________________
.
Poonam Chandrika
.........Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited and Another
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, vice Mr. Parmod
r Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General, for
respondent No.2/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 438 of
BNSS, 2023, lays challenge to judgment dated 12.07.2024, passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal
No.29-S/10 of 2024, titled Poonam Chandrika Vs. H.P. State Co-operative
Bank Limited, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
23.01.2024/26.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Court No.8, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in CIS
No.357 of 2022, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the
petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed
2024:HHC:7907
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 six months and pay compensation to the tune
of Rs.4,00,000/- to the complainant.
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are
that respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') instituted a
complaint under Section 138 of the Act, in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Court No.8, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal
Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability
issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, but fact remains that aforesaid
Cheque on its presentation, was dishonoured. Since petitioner-accused
failed to make the 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
23.01.2024/26.02.2024, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having
committed offence 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
2024:HHC:7907
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, which also
came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 12.07.2024, 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. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own
merits, parties have entered into compromise, whereby petitioner/accused
has agreed to pay the amount in question to the respondent/complainant.
6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel
representing the petitioner/accused apprised this Court that case of the
petitioner has been considered by the respondent/Bank under One Time
Settlement Scheme, which fact has been duly acknowledged by learned
counsel representing the respondent/complainant. Learned counsel
representing the petitioner/accused states that since petitioner has paid
the amount in question to the respondent/complainant under One time
Settlement Scheme, this Court while exercising power under Section 147 of
the Act may proceed to compound the offence.
7. Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, while putting in appearance on
behalf of respondent/Bank fairly acknowledges factum of compromise
2024:HHC:7907
arrived inter se parties. He states that since respondent/complainant has
received amount in question under One Time Settlement Scheme, he has
.
no objection in compounding the offence.
8. Having taken note of the fact that parties have compromised
the matter, whereby petitioner/accused has paid amount in question under
One Time Settlement Scheme, coupled with the fact that
respondent/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.
9. Consequently, in view of the above, present matter is ordered to
be compounded and impugned judgments of conviction and sentence dated
12.07.2024 and 23.01.2024/26.02.2024, 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. Accordingly, the petition is
disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
2024:HHC:7907
10. Since respondent/complainant was compelled to engage in
unwarranted litigation with the petitioner/accused for realization of his
.
own money, petitioner-accused is directed to deposit 2% of the Cheque
amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee,
within a period of four weeks, failing which, petitioner/accused shall render
himself for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
September 04, 2024
(Rajeev Raturi)
