Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 474 (HP)

P. L. THAKUR v. LAXMI DASS MAHANT

2013-05-28

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. CR.MPM No.51/2013 For the reasons set out in the application, 129 days delay in filing the petition, which has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. 2. ASSAILING the judgment dated 30.11.2011/ 8.12.2011, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Complaint No.279-i/2005, titled as Laxmi Dass Mahant versus Dr. P.L. Thakur, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, vide judgment dated 18.4.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2012, titled as Dr. P.L. Thakur versus Laxmi Dass Mahant, the accused- petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 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 fine to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- has been ordered to be paid to the complainant, in relation to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment of conviction and sentence stands upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. 3. LEARNED counsel for the parties submit that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- stands paid to the respondent by the petitioner- accused. Compromise deed is taken on record. They request that the matter be disposed of in terms of the compromise and in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu versus Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . 4. THE amount of cheque is Rs.2,20,000/-. Petitioner Dr. P.L. Thakur, who is present in the Court, undertakes to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, which shall be remitted to the H.P. Legal Services Authority. Petitioner's undertaking is accepted and accordingly the offence is compounded and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are set aside. 5. IT is clarified that in the event of non fulfillment of the solemn undertaking furnished by the petitioner to this Court, not only the judgments of conviction and sentence would automatically revive but also proceedings for violation of the undertaking, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as also the Constitution of India, shall be initiated against him. IT is clarified that in the event of non fulfillment of the solemn undertaking furnished by the petitioner to this Court, not only the judgments of conviction and sentence would automatically revive but also proceedings for violation of the undertaking, under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act as also the Constitution of India, shall be initiated against him. With the aforesaid observations, present Revision Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application, if any.