Ravi Thakur vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Finance ... on 13 October, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Ravi Thakur vs M/S Mahindra & Mahindra Finance ... on 13 October, 2020

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

                                                                             .
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA





                                          Cr. Revision No. 233 of 2020
                                         Date of Decision 13th October, 2020





    ________________________________________________________

    Ravi Thakur                                                          ....Petitioner
                                                    Versus





    M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Services Ltd.
                                           ......Respondent
    ________________________________________________________

    Coram

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

        Whether approved for reporting?1
    ______________________________________________________________
    For the Petitioner:                         Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate,



                                                through Video Conferencing.

    For the Respondent:           Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate vice




                                  Mr.Deepak      Gupta,      Advocate
                                  through Video Conferencing.
    _____________________________________________________________





    Vivek Singh Thakur, J.(oral)

Present revision petition has been filed assailing judgment dated 20.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, District Shimla H.P., in Cr. Appeal No. 35A-S/10 of 2018, whereby judgment/order dated 28.06.2018/02.07.2018, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Court No.V, Shimla, District Shimla, in criminal case RBT 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:57 :::HCHP 2 No. 200-3 of 2015 convicting and sentencing the petitioner/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period .

of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- to the complainant has been affirmed.

2. Learned vice counsel for respondent, under instructions of Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, who is original counsel for respondent, has stated, in her statement, that as per instructions received from respondent, she has been instructed to depose that matter has been settled with petitioner and as per settlement, petitioner has paid Rs.2,51,000/- to respondent and in turn, respondent has agreed to compound the matter in present case and for that purpose, she has been instructed to withdraw the complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, in terms of compromise and therefore, as instructed, she has prayed to permit the respondent to withdraw his complaint and to record no objection of respondent for compounding the case and acquitting the petitioner because, as per instructions, nothing is to be recovered from petitioner. She has further stated that she has made the statement strictly in accordance with instructions imparted to her by learned original counsel for respondent.

3 In view of aforesaid statement made by learned vice counsel for respondent, respondent/complainant is permitted to ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:57 :::HCHP 3 withdraw the complaint and matter is compounded and complaint arising out of dishonour of cheque under Section 138 .

of Negotiable Instrument Act is treated to be withdrawn and judgments of conviction and sentence passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set aside. Petitioner/accused is acquitted of the accusation framed against him.

5 Learned counsel for the pe titioner has also prayed for imposing the lesser amount of compounding fee instead of 15% of cheque amount. It is also submitted by him that considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010)5 SCC 663, as clarified by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain and another (2014)10 SCC 690 wherein it has been held that Court may reduce compounding fee for given facts and circumstances of a particular case, present case is a fit case of exemption of compounding fee.

6. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is an appropriate case to impose lesser compounding fee. Therefore, petitioner is directed to deposit compounding fee of Rs.25,000/- instead of 15% of cheque amount, with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today.

::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:57 :::HCHP 4

7. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place copy of receipt of deposit on record of this petition. In .

case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within stipulated period, the judgments of conviction and sentence shall automatically revive.

8. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy of this judgment be also sent to H.P. State Lagal Services Authority, Shimla.

    October 13, 2020                       (Vivek SinghThakur),
     ms                                          Judge








                                          ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 20:18:57 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court