Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1093 (HP)

Sudhir Kumar v. Ramesh Kumar

2017-09-19

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)—By way of instant criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397/401 Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 29.4.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu District Kullu H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 2016, affirming the judgment/order dated 07.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. in complaint No. 207-I/2009 (old) 326-I/2016/326-III/2016 (new), whereby the learned trial Court while holding petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short the Act), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,50,000/- to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 2. Facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant, preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P., alleging therein that he had lent a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the petitioner accused, who had friendly relation with him. Petitioner accused with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque bearing No. CC/36-089016 amounting to Rs. 6,50,000 drawn at SBP, Kullu Branch, however, fact remains that aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on its presentation in the bank. In the aforesaid background, respondent complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings against the petitioner accused under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court, on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 138 of the Act and vide judgment/order dated 7.10.2016, convicted and sentenced him as per description given supra. 4. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with judgment of learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, HP., however, fact remains that the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.4.2017, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the courts below. 5. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant criminal revision petition seeking therein his acquittal after setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the courts below. 5. On 22.8.2017, learned counsel for the parties informed this Court that there is possibility of amicable settlement inter-se parties and accordingly, this Court with a view to ascertain correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid statements having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, summoned parties to the Court and sequel to order dated 22.8.2017, parties have come present before this Court today. Learned counsel for the parties, on instructions of their respective clients, submitted before this Court that parties have compromised the matter for an amount of Rs. 8 lakh. 6. Shri Dibender Ghosh, Advocate, representing the petitioner-accused stated that an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- stands deposited before the learned trial Court, which can be immediately released in favour the respondent complainant, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner accused within a reasonable period. 7. Shri Vinay Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, on the instructions of his client, acknowledged the factum with regard to the compromise having been arrived at between the parties and stated that in case Rs. 6,50,000/- which stands deposited with the learned trial Court, is released in favour of the respondent-complainant and remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is paid within a period of one month, respondent-complainant shall have no objection, in case judgment of conviction recorded by the court below is quashed and set-aside. 8. This Court with a view to ascertain genuineness and correctness of aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel representing parties also recorded statements of both the parties, on oath, who categorically stated before this Court that they have compromised the matter for an amount of Rs. 8 lakh. Mr. Sudhir Kumar (accused) stated on oath that he has entered into compromise of his own free will and without there being any pressure and he has no objection, in case amount lying deposited before the learned trial Court is released in favour of the respondent-complainant. He further undertakes before this Court that he shall be depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- witzhin a period of one month to the complainant directly. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, respondent-complainant also stated on oath that parties have agreed to compromise the matter for Rs. He further undertakes before this Court that he shall be depositing the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- witzhin a period of one month to the complainant directly. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, respondent-complainant also stated on oath that parties have agreed to compromise the matter for Rs. 8 lakh and after having received the same, he shall have no claim against the petitioner-accused. Aforesaid statements having been made by the parties are taken on record. 9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid statements having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to accept the contention having been made by the learned counsel for the parties that present matter can be ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010) 5 SCC 663 . 10. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, present matter is ordered to be compounded and impugned judgments passed by the courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. Interim order is vacated. Bail bonds, if any, discharged. Petitioner accused is directed to make balance payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- qua remaining amount on or before 31.10.2017, to the complainant, failing which, he shall render himself liable to face penal consequences as well as contempt of Court. 11. Learned trial Court is directed to release amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- in favour of the respondent-complainant forthwith. Respondent-complainant is at liberty to approach this Court for revival of the present petition in case, petitioner accused fails to honour his commitment made before this Court. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.