Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 2]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Narender Kumar Sharma vs Sh. Vinod Kumar And Another on 2 June, 2016

Author: Sanjay Karol

Bench: Sanjay Karol

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
                    SHIMLA.




                                                                      .
                                                 Cr. Revision No.399/2015





                                                 Decided on : 02.06.2016
    Narender Kumar Sharma                                            .... Petitioner





                                    Versus
    Sh. Vinod Kumar and another                                      ....Respondents
    Coram:




                                             of
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? No 1




    For the Petitioner
                     rt         :    Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate.
    For the Respondents :            Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. R.S. Verma,
                                     Additional Advocate Generals for the

                                     State.
                                     Mr. Rohit Sharma and Mr. Anuj Gupta,
                                     Advocates for Respondent No.1.

    Sanjay Karol, J. (oral)

Assailing the judgment dated 16.2.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Shimla, H.P. in case No. 1866-3 of 2010, titled as Sh. Vinod Kumar Verma vs. Narender Kumar Sharma, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., vide judgment dated 30.7.2015, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 22-S/10 of 2013, titled as Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar Verma and another, the convict-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Section Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:36 :::HCHP 2

397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

.

2. It is seen that the Trial Court has convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation of `80,000/- to the complainant, in relation to of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment of conviction and rt sentence has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla.

3. On 13.5.2016 the matter was sent for mediation. It is heartening to note that the proceedings of mediation have fructified into positive outcome. This could have been possible only with the intervention of the learned counsel for the parties and the efforts put in by Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel who was requested by the Court to mediate between the parties. Efforts put in by learned counsel for the parties and more particularly Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel/Mediator are highly appreciated. Report of the learned Mediator is taken on record. Parties have amicably resolved their dispute in view ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:36 :::HCHP 3 of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663.

.

4. Needless to add, an amount of `1,40,000/- is lying deposited in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.II, Shimla by the petitioner. Remaining amount of `40,000/-already stands received by the respondent from of the petitioner on 26.5.2016 during mediation proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to deposit rt 15% of the amount in terms of the ratio laid down in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) with the Registry of this Court, within a period of two weeks, which shall be remitted to the Himachal Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, H.P.

5. As such, offence is directed to be compounded and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside. The amount, if any, deposited before the trial Court be released to the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any.

Copy Dasti.

    June 2, 2016                                (Sanjay Karol), J.




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:32:36 :::HCHP