Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 890 (HP)

Jaiwant Negi v. Amit Chauhan

2017-08-01

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)—Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 11.08.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Shimla (Camp at Rohru), District Shimla, H.P in Criminal Appeal No. 34-R/10 of 2012, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.08.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Rohru, District Shimla H.P., in case No.93-3 of 2011, 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 six months and to pay compensation of Rs. 1, 50,000/- to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), filed complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. II, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who is a fruit and vegetable commission agent at Subzi Mandi, Rohru had purchased packed apple boxes from the shop of the complainant on different dates and in order to make part payment of the purchased apple boxes, issued cheque bearing No.96634,dated 13.09.2011 amounting to Rs. 1,15,000/- drawn at State Bank of India, Rohru, District Shimla H.P. in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds", as a result of which, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law. 3. Subsequently, learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, came to the conclusion that the present petitioner-accused is guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as per the description already given supra. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Shimla, which came to be registered as Cr. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court, present petitioner-accused filed an appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Shimla, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. 34-R/10 of 2012, however fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, present petitioner-accused approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying for his acquittal after quashing and setting-aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 5. Today, during the proceedings of the case, learned counsel representing the parties fairly stated that parties have compromised the matter amicably and as such, 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. (2010) 5 SCC 663 . 6. Mr. Rajiv Rai, learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused, on the instructions, having been received from the petitioner, who is present in Court stated that an amount of Rs. 75,000/- stands deposited with the learned trial Court, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- has been paid in cash to the respondent-complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that entire cheque amount in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court stands paid to the respondent-complainant and as such, present petitioner - accused be acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. 7. Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent-complainant, on the instructions, having been received from the complainant, who is present in court fairly acknowledged that he has received Rs. 40,000/- in cash from the petitioner-accused and in case the amount deposited in the learned trial Court is released in his favour, he has no objection in case the present matter is ordered to be compounded in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. However, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant further stated that since respondent-complainant was compelled to initiate legal proceedings in the competent court of law, some adequate compensation may also be awarded in favour of the complainant-respondent. 8. However, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant further stated that since respondent-complainant was compelled to initiate legal proceedings in the competent court of law, some adequate compensation may also be awarded in favour of the complainant-respondent. 8. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court deems it fit to compound this case in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the respondent-complainant. The petitioner-accused has handed over Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation to the respondent-complainant in the court itself. 9. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties, the judgments of conviction recorded by the learned Courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the charge so framed against him under Section 138 of the Act. The bail bonds of the accused are discharged. 10. Learned trial Court below is directed to release an amount of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the complainant forthwith, on making application. 11. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.