Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1037 (HP)

Rupesh Sharma v. Praveen Kumar

2017-09-08

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)—Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2016/18.11.2016, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in criminal complaint No. 2186/2013(old)/501-I/2016/501-III/2016(new), whereby learned trial court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the complainant and in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) in terms of agreement to sell dated 24.01.2011 paid an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- to the petitioner(hereinafter referred to as the Accused) on 24.01.2011, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration of sale deed i.e. on or before 30.05.2011. It may be noticed that aforesaid amount was paid by the complainant in terms of aforesaid agreement to sell, whereby accused had agreed to sell land to the complainant. However, fact remains that accused failed to get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant and finally in October, 2011, he expressed his inability to get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant due to some family dispute and as such with a view to discharge his liability, he issued cheque in question amounting to Rs. 5,50,0000/- in favour of the complainant. Since, cheque in question issued in favour of the complainant was dishonoured on its presentation to the bank concerned, complainant got legal notice issued to the accused, calling upon him to make the payment good. But, since no steps, whatsoever were taken by the accused for making payment good and as such, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the competent court of law. 3. But, since no steps, whatsoever were taken by the accused for making payment good and as such, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter referred to as the Act), in the competent court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment dated 17.11.2016/18.11.2016 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description given hereinabove. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under section 374(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-Kullu, which came to be registered Cr. Appeal No.52 of 2016. However, fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. Hence, the present criminal revision petition before this Court. 5. On 21st July, 2017, Mr. Basant Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, invited attention of this Court to the compromise arrived inter se the parties (available at pages 42-43 of the paper book) and stated that parties have compromised the matter outside the court, whereby petitioner/accused has agreed to pay Rs. 4,80,000/- to the respondent/complainant. Accordingly, this court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the compromise, as referred above, summoned respondent/complainant in court vide order dated 21st July, 2017. 6. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant stated that he has instruction from the respondent/complainant to state that compromise placed on record is genuine and he has already received the payment in terms of compromise arrived inter se the parties. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of compromise arrived inter se the parties, instant matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2015) 5 SCC 663 . 7. Learned counsel further contended that in terms of compromise arrived inter se the parties, instant matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2015) 5 SCC 663 . 7. Consequently, in view of the averments/contents contained in the compromise as well as statement having been made by learned counsel for the respondent/complainant, this Court deems it fit to accept the prayer having been made on behalf of the petitioner/accused for compounding the instant matter in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. 8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion made hereinabove, instant matter is ordered to be compounded and judgments passed by learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. The bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be discharged. 9. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.