Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ravinder Kumar vs State Bank Of India And Another on 24 June, 2019
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
Cr. Revision No.394 of 2018 Reserved on : 17.6.2019 Date of decision : 24th June, 2019 Ravinder Kumar ... Petitioner.
Versus
State Bank of India and another
r ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. M.A. Khan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Ritta Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Manoj Bagga and Ms. Divya Sood, Deputy Advocate Generals for Respondent No.2/ State.
Anoop Chitkara, Judge The present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP...2...
Procedure. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated .
26.5.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2015, titled as Ravinder Kumar versus State Bank of India, pronounced by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prior to this, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in complaint No.117-I-2012, titled as State Bank of India versus Ravinder Kumar, had convicted the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner-convict was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant. In default thereof, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of four months.
2. A complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the State Bank of India through its Senior Branch Manager, levelling the following allegations:-
(a) The accused applied for a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purchase of a Tractor, from ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP ...3...
the State Bank of India, Hamirpur. The said loan was sanctioned. The accused executed a letter of .
arrangement SME-1 on 10.01.2012 and agreement of loan-cum-hypothecation SME-2, also on 10.01.2012 in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, in its branch at Hamirpur .
(b) The accused undertook to re-pay the loan amount in 57 monthly installments of Rs.10,527/-
each with accrued interest commencing from April, 2012 and undertook to pay interest @ 5% above the base rate (10%) with minimum of 15% per annum with monthly rest. The copies of SME-I and SME-2, were attached with the complaint.
(c) On 10.1.2012, an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
was disbursed to the accused by transferring the same in his account No.32133940898. On 31.7.2012, a sum of Rs.1,50,390/- was overdue against the accused and in order to regularize the account, the accused issued cheque No.752101 dated 18.8.2012 from his account No.20113435210 of the State Bank of India, Hamirpur, in lieu of the amount of cheque to be credited in his term loan account No.32133940898.
(d) This cheque bounced due to the insufficient funds in his account. The original cheque and ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP ...4...
memo dated 28.8.2012 were attached with the complaint.
.
(e) That the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 8.9.2012 under registered AD cover, however, the accused did not pay or made any arrangements to clear the cheque amount.
(f) Resultantly, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act.
(g) Learned trial Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur), vide order dated 5.6.2014 put notice of accusation to the accused.
(h) After completion of the trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. (I) The appeal against the impugned judgment was also dismissed. Resultantly, petitioner filed the present criminal revision.
3. When this revision petition was listed before a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court, on 25.3.2019, then a statement was made by the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 (S.B.I.) that there is a possibility of matter being amicably settled between the parties.
4. On 26.4.2019, when this matter was again listed, then a statement was made by Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Senior ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP ...5...
Advocate, on instructions, that the entire compensation .
amount, stands deposited by the petitioner before the trial Court and he is willing in compounding the offence.
5. Thereafter, this matter was listed for 17.6.2019.
Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate has placed on record the receipt dated 15.6.2019 of the compounding fee which has been deposited in the HP State Legal Services Authority, Shimla for compromise in the High Court.
6. Mr. Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (SBI) has not disputed this contention. He has also not disputed that any amount is due to the S.B.I. on account of this cheque.
7. It has been argued by Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate that in view of the fact that entire compensation amount has been deposited alongwith compounding fee, therefore, this matter be compounded in terms of the Act and F.I.R. and other proceedings be quashed.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent did not dispute or raise any objection this this contention. Therefore, in my ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP ...6...
considered view, the offence is ordered to be compounded .
and all proceedings are quashed on the following grounds:-
(i) The jurisprudence behind the N.I. Act is that the business transactions are honoured. The legislative intention is not to send the people to suffer incarceration because their cheque was bounced. These proceedings are simply to execute the recovery of cheque amount by showing teeth of penalty loss.
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhangu Trading Co. and another versus Surjit Singh (dead) through LRs, Criminal Appeal Nos.808 and 809 decided on 02.07.2018, in terms of the subsequent judgment in N.P. Murugesan versus C. Krishnamurthy, Criminal Appeal No.818 of 2018, decided on 4.7.2018 and in A. Natarajan and another versus T.R. Rajendran, Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2019, decided on 28.1.2019, quashed the same proceedings.
(iii) A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.3.2018, passed in Cr. Revision No.301 of 2017, titled as Rajiv Mohammad versus State Bank of India, took the similar view.
(iv) This Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP ...7...
further supported by Section 147 of the N.I. Act to interfere in this kind of matter where parties have .
paid the entire money and where the complainant does not object to clear all the proceedings.
8. In view of the entirety of the facts of the case, as well as judicial precedents, a few of which have been mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of these proceedings will not suffice any fruitful purpose whatsoever. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is invoked to quash the above mentioned FIR and consequent proceedings.
9. In Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney, (1979) 3 SCR 639, at p 642, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"The finest hour of Justice arise propitiously when parties, despite falling apart, bury the hatchet and weave a sense of fellowship or reunion."::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP
...8...
10. Consequently, in view of compounding of offences, .
the judgment dated 26.5.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No.34/2015, titled as Ravinder Kumar versus State Bank of India, pronounced by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he upheld the judgment passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in complaint No.117-I-2012, titled as State Bank of India versus Ravinder Kumar, convicting and sentencing the petitioner to to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- to the complainant and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for a period of four months, are set aside and quashed.
Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act.
11. The bail bonds are accordingly discharged.
12. The learned trial Court shall release all the amount deposited in this case, if any, alongwith interest in favour of respondent No.2 (State Bank of India), in its account in the manner, as desired by the bank, immediately, on production of certified copy of this judgment, ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP ...9...
Accordingly petition stands disposed of. All .
pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
24th June, 2019(KS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2019 23:47:59 :::HCHP