Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sheela Devi vs Ramesh Chand on 29 May, 2017
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No. 393 of 2016
Date of Decision: 29th May, 2017
.
________________________________________________________________
Sheela Devi ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Ramesh Chand . .... Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner : Mr.D.N.Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Dinender Panwar, Advocate.
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral)
Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 1.8.2016, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla District Shimla, H.P in Criminal Appeal No.19-S/10 of 2015, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.1.2015/21.2.2015, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, in case No.2529-3 of 2014/12, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:00:34 :::HCHP
...2...
compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable .
Instruments Act.
2. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., against the present petitioner-accused( hereinafter referred to as the accused) stating therein that in the month of July, 2011 on the request having been made to him by the accused, he advanced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the accused on different dates. With a view to discharge her liability, accused issued cheque bearing No.774225, dated 18.7.2012 amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- of an account maintained by her in State Bank of Patiala, Sanjauli Branch, Shimla, H.P. However, fact remains that on presentation, the aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds", as a result of which, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the appropriate Court of law.
3. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:00:34 :::HCHP ...3...
having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the .
description already given supra.`
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (1) Shimla, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal 19-S/10 of 2015, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying therein for her acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below.
5. On 1.5.2017, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on the instructions having been received by him from her client stated that petitioner is ready and willing to make the entire payment in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and as such, instant matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.(2010)5 SCC
663. ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:00:34 :::HCHP ...4...
6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that the parties have .
compromised the matter for Rs. 1, 10,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- stands deposited with the learned trial Court, which can be released in favour of the complainant. The petitioner- accused, who is present in Court prayed that she may be given four weeks' time to make the balance payment of Rs. 10,000/- .
7. Mr. Dinender Panwar, learned counsel representing the respondent on the instructions of the complainant, who is present in Court stated that the parties have compromised the matter for Rs. 1,10,000/- and he has no objection in compounding the offence in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra.
8. This Court with a view to ascertain genuineness and correctness of aforesaid statements having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties also recorded statements of both the parties, who on oath stated that they have compromised the matter for Rs. 1, 10,000/-of their own will without there being any pressure. Statements are taken on record.
9. Consequently, in view of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the statement having been made by the parties on oath, this Court ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:00:34 :::HCHP ...5...
deems it fit to compound the offence in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case .
supra. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge so framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Needless to say that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid by the petitioner-accused to the complainant within a period of four weeks, as agreed upon by her in the Court, failing which, she shall render herself liable for penal consequences as well as Contempt of Court for non- compliance of the judgment passed by this Court. The amount deposited in the trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant-respondent on making application forthwith.
The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
(Sandeep Sharma)
29th May, 2017 Judge
(shankar)
::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2017 00:00:34 :::HCHP