Sunil Negi vs Sudesh Palsara on 23 April, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sunil Negi vs Sudesh Palsara on 23 April, 2019

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

                                                      1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA

                                         Cr. Revision No. 3 of 2017




                                                                                .

                                         Date of Decision: April 23, 2019

    Sunil Negi                                                                      ...Petitioner.





                                                  Versus

    Sudesh Palsara                                                             ..Respondent.





    Coram:
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1No.

    For the Petitioner:                  Mr.Vinay Mehta, Advocate.

    For the Respondents:                 Mr.J.D. Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.Dalip
                                         Singh Kaith, Advocate.


    Ajay Mohan Goel, J(Oral)

By way of this revision petition, petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 13.10.2015/27.10.2015, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P., in Case No.138 NIA/0300064/2012, titled as Sudesh Palsra vs. Sunil Kumar, vide which in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by the present respondent, petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also to pay compensation of `2,00,000/-, as also the judgment dated 07.10.2016, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in Cr.Appeal No.000091 of 2015, titled as Sunil Negi vs. Sudesh Palsra, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2019 21:59:19 :::HCHP 2

vide which, appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, stood dismissed.

2. When the case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the dispute which led to the .

filing of the present petition, stands amicably settled between the petitioner and the respondent and as of now nothing is due to the complainant from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the dispute stands amicably settled between the petitioner and the respondent, in the interest of justice, this petition be allowed by modifying the impugned judgments to the effect that the offence committed by the petitioner be compounded.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no objection for the same. Taking into consideration the fact that the entire disputed amount stands paid by the petitioner to the respondent-complainant, prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and the judgments passed by the learned Court below stands modified to the extent that the offence committed by the petitioner is ordered to be compounded, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the cheque amount with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from today.

4. Petition is disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.

(Ajay Mohan Goel), Judge.

April 23, 2019 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2019 21:59:19 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court