Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 372 (HP)

Sant Lal v. Madan Lal

2017-04-18

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Instant criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is directed against judgment dated 1.7.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP in Criminal Appeal No. 31-S/10 of 2015, affirming judgment dated 7.9.2015 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Complaint No. 59/3 of 2014, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (''Act'', for short), convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.00 Lakh to the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ''complainant'') under Section 357(3) CrPC and, in default of payment of compensation, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of ten days. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that petitioner-accused, who was a friend and known to the complainant for the last so many years, was in need of money in order to start his business and as such he made request to him to advance a friendly loan of Rs. 5.00 Lakh. On the aforesaid request having been made by the petitioner-accused, complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 5.00 Lakh to the petitioner-accused as a loan and petitioner-accused, with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque amounting to Rs. 5.00 Lakh on 16.4.2014, drawn at Punjab National Bank, Patta Mehlog Branch, District Solan, in favour of the complainant, with the assurance that the same would be honoured by the drawee Bank on presentation. However, the fact remains that, on presentation, cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account maintained by the petitioner-accused. Immediately after receipt of memo from the Bank, complainant got a legal notice issued to the petitioner-accused, calling upon him to make good the payment within fifteen days but since he failed to make the payment within stipulated time, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law. 3. Learned trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. 3. Learned trial Court i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, held petitioner-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per description given herein above. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and compensation recorded by the learned trial Court, petitioner-accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 CrPC, in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, which came be to be registered as Criminal Appeal No. 31-S/10 of 2015. Aforesaid appeal was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court, by way of instant petition, seeking his acquittal, after setting aside judgments of conviction recorded by the courts below. 4. During pendency of this case, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused made statement before this Court on 8.3.2017, that the petitioner-accused is ready and willing to get the matter settled in terms of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned counsel representing the parties, Mr. P.S. Goverdhan, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, sought time to have instructions in the matter. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties fairly stated before this Court that the parties have compromised the matter amicably and as such prayed that instant matter may be ordered to be compounded in terms of judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court (supra) . Mr. O.C. Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner also placed on record application filed under Section 482 CrPC, whereby prayer has been made to dispose of the instant petition in terms of compromise dated 20.1.2017, entered into between the petitioner-accused and respondent No.1. Perusal of aforesaid application, which is taken on record, suggests that parties have entered into compromise on 20.1.2017, whereby petitioner-accused has agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation to respondent No.1, in terms of judgment passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Complaint No. 59/3 of 2014. 6. Perusal of aforesaid application, which is taken on record, suggests that parties have entered into compromise on 20.1.2017, whereby petitioner-accused has agreed to pay the entire amount of compensation to respondent No.1, in terms of judgment passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Complaint No. 59/3 of 2014. 6. This Court, solely with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the aforesaid statement having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties as well as compromise placed on record, also inquired from the complainant, namely Madan Lal, who is present in the Court. Complainant stated before this Court that parties have entered into compromise on 20.1.2017 but, he also stated that since he has been made to run from pillar to post for the recovery of his amount, which he had advanced to the petitioner-accused in good faith, as such, he may be awarded reasonable compensation/costs. 7. After carefully perusing the compromise placed on record by the parties as well as statement having been made by the complainant, this Court deems it fit to order compounding of this Court in terms of judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court (supra) . 8. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court (supra) , judgments of conviction passed by learned courts below are set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case by the Police. However, besides the amount as already stands paid to the complainant, in terms of compromise, petitioner-accused shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the complainant, within a period of 15 days from today. In case, aforesaid amount of costs is not paid within stipulated time, complainant is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the Court of law for non-compliance of this judgment. Amount, if any, lying deposited with the trial Court, may be released in favour of the complainant, on making appropriate application for the purpose. 9. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any furnished by the petitioneraccused, are discharged. 10. Registry is directed to prepare and send the release warrants of the petitioner-accused to the quarter concerned, forthwith.