Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1121 (HP)

Rupesh Sharma v. Rajesh Thakur

2018-06-19

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Present Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment dated 6.9.2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2017, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 23.12.2016, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, in complaint No.406-I/2011/1524-I/2013(old) & /699-I/2016/11/ 699-III/2016/11(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.6,50,000/- to the complainant. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent (for short ‘complainant’) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short “Act’) against the petitioner (for short ‘accused’) in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that accused borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from him and assured to repay the same within a period of six months. Subsequently, on 15th July, 2011, accused with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque bearing No. 507716, amounting to Rs.4,50,000/- in favour of the complainant, however fact remains that same was dishonoured due to “insufficient funds” in the account of the accused. Since, the accused failed to make the payment within stipulated time despite issuance of legal notice served upon him, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the appropriate Court of law. 3. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment dated 23.12.2016 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, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. 19 of 2017. However, fact remains that same was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.9.2017, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. Appeal No. 19 of 2017. However, fact remains that same was dismissed vide judgment dated 6.9.2017, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments passed the learned Courts below. 5. On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel representing the parties, informed this Court that during the pendency of the present revision petition, parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them and as such, this Court on askance of learned counsel for the parties, summoned both the parties to the Court, so that factum with regard to compromise, if any, arrived inter se parties is ascertained. 6. Mr. Basant Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to compromise, dated 27.02.2018 arrived inter se parties, contends that since parties have amicably resolved their dispute inter se them, instant case can be ordered to be compounded in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., (2010)5 SCC 663 . 7. Though, bare perusal of the compromise placed on record, suggests that parties have compromised the matter inter se them, but this Court with a view to ascertain the genuineness and correctness of the compromise arrived inter se parties, also recorded the statement of the complainant, who is present in court. Complainant present in Court stated on oath that he has compromised the matter with the accused without there being any external pressure and he has no objection in case the instant matter is ordered to be compounded in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. His statement is taken on record. 8. Consequently, in view of the compromise arrived inter se the parties, especially statement having been made by the complainant-respondent, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer having been made by learned counsel for the petitioner for compounding the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case supra. 9. 9. 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. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.