M/S Kuldeep Electro Care vs Ramesh Sen on 24 February, 2022

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

M/S Kuldeep Electro Care vs Ramesh Sen on 24 February, 2022

Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                ON THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                             BEFORE
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 23 OF 2022
    BETWEEN:




                                                                  .
       M/S KULDEEP ELECTRO CARE,





       HOSPITAL ROAD, MANDI TOWN,
       DISTRICT MANDI,HP, THROUGH
       ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI KULDEEP
       SHARMA





                                                  ....APPELLANT


         (BY MR. MEHAR CHAND,ADVOCATE)

         AND





    1.    RAMESH SEN SON OF SHRI NIKKA
          RAM SEN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
          AND POST OFFICE NERCHOWK,
          NEAR KISAN BHAWAN, TEHSIL                        ...RESPONDENT

          BALH, DISTRICT MANDI,HP.

    2.     STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
         (MR. GAURAV CHAUDHARY,ADVOCATE
          FOR R1
         (MR. RAJU RAM RAHI, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL


          FOR R2
          PSI RAJAT RANA
          H.C HARISH KUMAR NO.24
          CONSTABLE VIVEK SEN NO.647 PRESENT




          IN PERSON
         Whether approved for reporting?





                    This Appeal coming on for orders this day, the Court





    delivered the following:
                                JUDGMENT

Present appeal has been filed against order dated 07.01.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, HP in case NI Act No. 150III/17 /15, titled as M/s Kuldeep Electro Care versus Ramesh Sen, praying to set aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2019, whereby the complaint filed by petitioner has been ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:01:55 :::CIS 2 dismissed in default for want of prosecution on behalf of complainant, as a result of which accusedrespondent has been acquitted .

2. It has been submitted by respondent No.1 that matter .

stands amicably settled and he has deposited the settled amount in the account of the petitioner. His statement on oath has been recorded to that effect. Compromise arrived at between the contesting parties has also been endorsed by learned counsel for the petitioner in his statement recorded separately.

3. Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his statement has stated that he is duly authorized by the petitioner to make statement and compromise the matter with respondent No.1. He has stated that as per instructions imparted to him, matter has been settled and as per settlement, respondent No.1 has deposited Rs.45,000/in the account of the petitioner and has further stated that he has instructions to seek permission to withdraw the complaint for compounding the case. He has further stated that his aforesaid deposition is strictly in consonance with the instructions imparted to him by the petitioner.

4. Ramesh Sen, Respondent No.1 in his statement has stated that matter has been settled with the petitioner and in terms of compromise, he has paid Rs.45,000/ to the petitioner by remitting the same in his bank account. He has further stated that in turn, petitioner has agreed to withdraw the complaint for compounding the case. He has prayed for allowing the prayer of the petitioner for compounding the ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:01:55 :::CIS 3 case, out of his free will and consent and without any coercion or threat of any kind.

5. Consequently, matter is compounded and complaint .

arising out of dishonor of cheque, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is treated to be withdrawn.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted 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 State Legal Services Authority Vs. Prateek Jain and another 2014 (10) SCC 690, a lenient view be taken and the petitioner be exempted from payment of compounding fee.

7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid cases, instead of 15% of the cheque amount, petitioner/accused is directed to deposit Rs.3,000/ as compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today.

8. After depositing compounding fee/cost, petitioner shall place a copy of receipt of deposit of compounding fee on record of this petition. In case of default in depositing compounding fee/cost with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla within four weeks from today, the consequential action shall follow to recover the said amount as fine under Cr.P.C.

9. Petition stands disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:01:55 :::CIS 4

10. Copy of this judgment be sent to H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla.

11. Parties are permitted to use downloaded copy from the .

High Court website for depositing the compounding fee with the H.P. Legal Services Authority, Shimla and for other purposes also.

Concerned authority shall not insist for certified copy. Passing of order may be verified from High Court website.

(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 24 February, 2022 Judge.

       (veena)       r









                                                 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2022 09:01:55 :::CIS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court