Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 51 (HP)

Mohinder Singh v. Jai Chand

2014-01-08

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) Cr.MP(M) No.11896/2013 Heard. For the reasons set out in the application, delay of 17 days in filing the Revision Petition, which, in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Application stands disposed of. Revision Petition be registered. Criminal Revision No.13/2014 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal today itself. 3. Assailing the judgment dated 24.8.2011/ 25.8.2011, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Hamirpur, in Private Complaint No.88-I-07, titled as Jai Chand versus Mohinder Singh, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, vide judgment dated 20.8.2013, passed in Criminal Appeal No.54 of 2011, tilted as Mohinder Singh versus Jai Chand and another, the accused-petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition under the provisions of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. It is seen that the Trial Court has convicted the accused-petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and pay compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- to the complainant, in relation to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. 5. Parties have amicably resolved their dispute, 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 . 6. The matter stands compromised between the parties, as is evident from order dated 26.12.2013, passed by this Court. Petitioner-accused, through his counsel, also undertakes to deposit 15% of the cheque amount in the Registry of this Court within eight weeks, which shall be remitted to the H.P. Legal Services Authority. 7. 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. 8. 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.