Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Rajeev Kumar vs Son Of Sh. Dole Ram on 21 October, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
.
CR. REVISION NO. 262 OF 2021
Between:-
SH. RAJEEV KUMAR
SON OF SH. DULE,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JIGTI,
P.O. KATAULA, TEHSIL AND DISTT. MANDI (H.P.)
PETITIONER
(BY MR. RAMESH SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SH. HIRA LAL
SON OF SH. DOLE RAM,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHANARA,
P.O. JAGATSUKH,
TEHSIL MANALI, DISTT. KULLU (HP)
RESPONDENT
(BY MR. MAAN SINGH, ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting:
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:
O R D E R
By way of present petition filed under S. 397 read with S.401 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 2.8.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Cr.
Appeal No. 06 of 2020, affirming judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3.10.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, in Cr. Complaint No. 56 of 2016, whereby learned court below, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:06:31 :::CIS 2 having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter, 'Act') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.00 Lakh to the respondent-complainant .
(hereinafter, 'complainant').
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that complainant instituted proceedings under S. 138 of the Act in the competent court of law against the accused, alleging therein that the accused with a view to discharge his liability, had issued cheque No. 135486 dated 25.12.2015 amounting to Rs. 1.25 Lakh drawn on Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Limited Manali, but the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused. Since despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make good the payment within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to institute proceedings under S.138 of Act. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence led on record by respective parties, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under S. 138 of Act and convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, accused preferred an appeal before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.8.2021. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal, after setting aside the ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:06:31 :::CIS 3 judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned courts below.
4. Vide order dated 25.10.2021, this court suspended substantive .
sentence imposed by the learned trial Court upon the accused, subject to deposit of 50% of compensation amount. In terms of aforesaid order Rs.
1.00 Lakh was deposited by the accused, as is evident from order dated 24.6.2022. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner apprised this court that the petitioner is ready to make payment of entire amount of compensation, enabling this court to compound the offence while exercising power under S. 147 of the Act.
5. Today, during proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over Rs. 1.00 Lakh in cash to learned counsel for the respondent for further handing over the same to the respondent.
Since sum of Rs. 1.00 Lakh deposited by the petitioner in terms of order dated 24.6.2022 has been already ordered to be released in favour of respondent vide order dated 17.8.2022, nothing remains to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court having taken note of the fact that payment of entire amount of compensation stands made to the respondent, this court may proceed to order compounding of the offence in terms of S.147 of the Act.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to receipt of Rs. 1.00 Lakh in cash submitted that in case, amount lying deposited with learned trial Court is received by the respondent/complainant, he shall have no objection in compounding the ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:06:31 :::CIS 4 offence, but certain amount may be awarded in favour of the respondent, as litigation expenses, since the respondent was unnecessarily dragged into litigation for realization of his own amount.
.
7. Since this Court has ordered on 17.8.2022 to release Rs.1.00 lakh lying depisted with the learned trial Court and another sum of Rs. 1.00 Lakh has been received by learned counsel for the respondent, entire amount of compensation stands paid to the respondent, as such, there appears to be no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for compounding of offence in light of S.147 of the Act and guidelines framed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu V. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663, wherein, it has been held that court may compound offence even in those cases, where accused stands convicted.
8. Consequently, in view of above, prayer made on behalf of the accused is allowed and offence committed by him under S.138 of the Act is ordered to be compounded. Judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned courts below are quashed and set aide.
Accused is acquitted of the offence under S.138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any furnished by the accused stand discharged.
9. However, litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded in favour of the complainant, which shall be paid by the accused to him, within three weeks from today, for unnecessarily dragging the complainant in litigation.
Liberty is reserved to the complainant to file appropriate proceedings in case petitioner fails to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within aforesaid period. Learned trial Court is also directed to release the amount ::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:06:31 :::CIS 5 deposited with it in favour of the complainant, and remit the same in his saving bank account, details whereof shall be furnished by the complainant within a week, if not already released.
.
10. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused stand discharged.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge
October 21, 2022
(Vikrant)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 21/10/2022 20:06:31 :::CIS