Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 27.09.2024 vs Munish Gupta And Another on 27 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2024:HHC:9312
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.394 of 2024
Date of Decision: 27.09.2024
__________________________________________________________________________
.
Mohinder Singh .........Petitioner
Versus
Munish Gupta and Another .......Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:
Mr. Bhairav Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent
No.1.
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.
Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr.
Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for
r respondent No.2/State.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Instant criminal revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., lays challenge to judgment dated 01.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal No.6-N/X/2021, titled Mohinder Singh Vs. Munish Gupta and Another, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2021/06.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the learned trial Court while holding the petitioner-
accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the "Act"), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2024 20:31:11 :::CIS 2024:HHC:9312 2 for a period of one year and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.16,50,000/- 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that accused with a view to discharge his liability issued Cheque for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, 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 01.03.2021/06.03.2021, 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 Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 01.04.2024, as a consequence of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2024 20:31:11 :::CIS 2024:HHC:9312 3 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 entire amount of compensation awarded by learned Court below to the respondent/complainant.
6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, counsel representing the petitioner, on instruction from the petitioner, states that respondent has agreed to settle the dispute for Rs.8,25,000/- as lump-sum towards total amount of Rs.16,50,000/- awarded by learned Court below. He states that sum of Rs.3,30,000/- lying deposited with the learned trial Court, has been agreed to be released in favour of respondent/complainant and besides above, he has already paid sum of Rs.4,95,000/- to the respondent/complainant. He states that since petitioner/accused has already paid Rs.4,95,000/- to the complainant and has no objection for release of remaining amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court in favour of complainant, as per compromise, as detailed hereinabove, this Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act may proceed to compound the offence.
7. Mr. Bhairav Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant states that he has instructions to depose on behalf of respondent. He states that respondent has agreed to settle the ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2024 20:31:11 :::CIS 2024:HHC:9312 4 dispute for Rs.8,25,000/-. He states that respondent has received sum of Rs.4,95,000/- from the petitioner and in case sum of Rs.3,30,000/- lying .
deposited with the learned Court below is ordered to be released in favour of respondent, respondent shall have no objection in case the judgments of conviction passed by the learned Courts below are quashed and set aside the petitioner is acquitted of the charge framed against him. His statement is taken on record.
8. Since parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them, as has been taken note hereinabove, coupled with the fact that respondent/complainant has no objection in compounding the offence, in the event of his being released the amount lying deposited with the Registry of this Court, 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 01.04.2024 and 01.03.2021/06.03.2021, 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2024 20:31:11 :::CIS 2024:HHC:9312 5 vacated. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Amount of Rs.3,30,000/-lying deposited with the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of .
the respondent-complainant by remitting the same in his saving bank account, detail whereof shall be furnished by his counsel within one week.
10. Since complainant was compelled to engage in unwarranted litigation with the accused for realization of his own amount, accused is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within a period of six weeks. Besides above, accused is directed to deposit 2% of the Cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Service Authority as compounding fee, within the same period, failing which, he shall render himself liable for penal consequences as well as contempt of Court Present criminal revision petition stands disposed of, along with pending applications, if any.
(Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 27, 2024 (Rajeev Raturi) ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2024 20:31:11 :::CIS