Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2560 (HP)

Satvir v. Ankush

2016-12-02

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. Cr. MP(M) No. 1445 of 2016 1. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that he does not intend to file reply to the application and has no objection, if the same is allowed. Accordingly, in view of the above as well as grounds stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay in filing the revision petition is condoned. Application is disposed of. Cr. Revision No. 380 of 2016 a/w Cr. MP No. 1314 of 2016 Be registered. Issue notice. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate as well as Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, waive notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively. 2. Present criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 07.9.2015, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 7-S/10 of 2014, affirming the judgment and order dated 30.12.2013, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, District Solan , H.P., in Criminal Case No. 1805/03/2013/10, whereby present accused-petitioner is convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short "the Act") and to pay compensation of sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant. 3. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that the respondent No.1-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, District Solan , H.P., averring therein that he had paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on different dates to the petitioner accused, who in order to discharge his liability, issued a cheque bearing No. 344042 dated 2.8.2010 amounting to Rs. 40,000/- drawn at HDFC Bank Solan. However, on presentation, the aforesaid cheque was dishonored and returned with the cheque returning memo of HDFC Bank dated 20.8.2010 with intimation letter dated 25.8.2010 of the Jogindera Central Coop. Bank Subathu, with endorsement "Account Closed". 40,000/- drawn at HDFC Bank Solan. However, on presentation, the aforesaid cheque was dishonored and returned with the cheque returning memo of HDFC Bank dated 20.8.2010 with intimation letter dated 25.8.2010 of the Jogindera Central Coop. Bank Subathu, with endorsement "Account Closed". After receipt of aforesaid information from the bank, the complainant got issued legal notice dated 3.9.2010 advising the petitioner to make payment good within thirty days of the receipt of the information but fact remains that petitioner failed to make the payment in terms of the notice and as such, the complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the competent court of law. 4. Learned Special Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Solan, District Solan , H.P, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the parties, found accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and vide separate order dated 30.12.2013 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment and pay compensation as has already been mentioned above. 5. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of the Cr. PC. before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., however, the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 7.9.2015. In the aforesaid background, petitioner accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal petition. 6. Today, when this matter was listed before this Court for admission, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused invited attention of this Court to the Cr. MP No. 1314 of 2016, filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 482 of the Cr. PC, for compounding of offence. Mr. Sharma further contended that parties have entered into compromise on 7.7.2016, whereby petitioner accused has paid a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent as full and final payment of settlement. In view of the above, Mr. Sharma, prayed that instant matter may be ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2015) 5 SCC 663. 7. On the other hand, Mr. 60,000/- to the respondent as full and final payment of settlement. In view of the above, Mr. Sharma, prayed that instant matter may be ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2015) 5 SCC 663. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1, on the instructions imparted to him by his client, fairly stated that he has no objection, whatsoever, in compounding the matter, as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court ibid. Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, stated that respondent/complainant has already received an amount of Rs. 60,000/- in terms of compromise placed on record, along with application for compounding the offence. 8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid statements having been made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as compromise made available on record, this court is of the view that in the interest of justice, present case can be ordered to be compounded in the spirit of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (supra) at this stage. 9. Consequently, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, judgments passed by learned courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. 10. Copy of order dated 24.11.2016, passed by learned JMIC, Solan suggests that petitioner accused is in judicial custody. Since judgment of conviction recorded by the court below has been set-aside in the present proceedings, petitioner accused deserves to be acquitted forthwith. Registry is directed to prepare and send the release warrants to the quarter concerned forthwith. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.