Himachal Pradesh High Court
Pawan Kumar vs Dharam Singh Thakur on 22 May, 2025
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 170 of 2025 Decided on : 22.5.2025 Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Dharam Singh Thakur ...Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Negi, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner Pawan Kumar has filed the present petition, against the judgment dated 26.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur, Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, Distt. Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court'), in case No. 10 of 2023, titled as, 'Pawan Kumar vs. Dharam Singh Thakur.' 2
2. By way of judgment dated 26.11.2024, learned Appellate Court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal.
3. The said appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction, dated 30.9.2022 and order of sentence, dated 7.1.2023, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), in case No. 125 of 2015, titled as, 'Dharam Singh Thakur versus Pawan Kumar'.
4. By way of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as referred to above, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant.
5. During the pendency of the revision petition, before this Court, as per the stand taken by the 3 parties, the matter has been compromised between the parties. This fact is demonstrated from Cr. M.P. No. 2064 of 2025, which has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioner, before this Court, in which, he has prayed that permission to compound the offence may kindly be accorded.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made statement, without oath, that the matter has been settled with the respondent with regard to cheque No. 119383, dated 5.8.2015, for a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further deposed that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 60,000/- before the learned trial Court and paid a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- to the complainant, in cash. He has further deposed that he has no objection, in case, the amount, so deposited, before the learned trial Court, is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. As per him, nothing is due against the petitioner. 4
8. The learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has made statement, without oath, acknowledging the factual position, as asserted by the petitioner, in his statement.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that some leniency may kindly be shown to the petitioner, in compounding fee, as he is 40% visually impaired and belongs to BPL family. The income certificate of petitioner is annexed with Cr. M.P. No. 2024 of 2025, as Annexure PA-2 and the Disability Certificate is annexed with the petition, as Annexure PA-3.
10. Lastly, he has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the amount deposited by the petitioner, before the learned trial Court, may kindly be released in favour of the petitioner.
9. Keeping in view the fact that the parties to the lis have compromised the matter, Cr.M.P. No. 2024 of 2025 is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence.
5
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and0 order of sentence, referred to above, passed by the learned trial Court, and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, and accused is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, subject to payment of only 2% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee, as the petitioner is 40% visually impaired and belongs to BPL family. 50% of the compounding fee shall be deposited by the accused with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, and remaining 50% of the amount shall be deposited by him with the H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within eight weeks, from today.
11. It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the compounding fee, within the prescribed period, the revision petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence, shall revive automatically, and the 6 petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court to serve out the substantive sentence, imposed by the learned trial Court.
12. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioner/accused are ordered to be discharged. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Virender Singh) Judge May 22, 2025 (Kalpana)