Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rameshwari Thakur vs Jagtamba Thakur on 28 June, 2016
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 111 of 2016
Date of Decision: 28.6.2016.
.
______________________________ _____________________________
[
Rameshwari Thakur .........Petitioner.
Versus
Jagtamba Thakur ............Respondent.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting1?
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate, for the
respondent.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 5.3.2016, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 2/10 of 2014, affirming the judgment and order dated 15.2.2014 and 20.2.2014, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P., in Case No. 22A/4 of 2012.
Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:42:43 :::HCHP -2-2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the complainant instituted a complaint against the .
petitioner-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act) in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, HP. Record reveals that the complainant was employed as a Manager by the accused on payment of Rs. 8,000/- per of month as salary. It was also agreed that complainant will give increment @10% annually during the service period. The rt complainant started working as Manager in July, 2007 but the accused did not pay any salary to her. The accused assured to pay the entire salary to the complainant in lump sum and the complainant was asked to wait till the financial condition of the accused gets normal as the accused was facing financial crisis to run her business. Though the accused returned the amount of Rs.
20,000/- to the complainant which she had spent to mete out the requirements of the office of the accused. The complainant left her job on 20.11.2010 as the accused failed to pay her salary and other expenses etc. The complainant was in dire need of money for taking admission in the MBA course but despite there being several requests, the accused failed to pay the salary to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:42:43 :::HCHP -3- complainant. However, accused issued a cheque No. 237765 000024000 dated 20.1.2011 of Rs. 3,50,000/-drawn at Punjab .
National Bank, Bilaspur, HP, however, aforesaid cheque was returned by the Bank vide memo 17.2.2011 with remarks ' Funds insufficient".
3. The complainant contacted the accused, who assured of that she may again deposit the cheque in bank and this time it would be cleared. Accordingly, the cheque was again deposited rt but same was again dishonored by the bank for want of funds.
The complainant sent demand notice dated 11.3.2011 to the accused advising him to make the payment but no steps, whatsoever, were taken to make the payment. Accordingly, the complainant was compelled to file complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law. After satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused, the learned trial Court put notice of accusation to her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Records suggests that learned court below on the basis of the material available on record held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:42:43 :::HCHP -4- and vide order dated 22.2.2011, learned trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo sentence till the rising of the Court and to pay .
fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- and in default, to further undergo imprisonment of six months.
5. Being dis-satisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court, petitioner-accused of filed an appeal under Section 379 Cr.PC in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which was dismissed vide judgment rt dated 5.3.2016 and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court was upheld. Hence, the present petition.
6. This Court vide order dated 3.5.2016 while admitting the petition, suspended the sentence imposed upon the petitioner during the pendency of the petition.
7. Today, when the matter was listed before this Court, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused prayed that since an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as awarded by the learned court below has been deposited before the Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, and matter may be ordered to be compounded. In support of his contention, he presented the receipt, whereby an amount of Rs.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:42:43 :::HCHP -5-4,50,000/- stands deposited in the learned trial court, which is taken on record.
.
8. Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate for the respondent, after perusing the receipt made available to this Court, consented for compounding the offence in terms of prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-accused.
of
9. Consequently, in view of the facts stated herein above, this court is of the view that in the interest of justice, present case rt can be compounded in the spirit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2015) 5 SCC 663, at this stage.
10. Accordingly, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, judgments passed by learned courts below are set-aside and the petitioner- accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Petitioner accused is also directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount with Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today in terms of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra). Needles to say that the complainant is at ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:42:43 :::HCHP -6- liberty to get amount released from the learned trial Court immediately. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. Accordingly, the .
petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
June 28, 2016 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:42:43 :::HCHP