Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2127 (HP)

Goverdhan Chauhan @ Titu v. Sunder Lal

2018-11-30

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dated 7.3.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Shimla, Circuit Court at Rohru, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No.57S/10 of 2012, affirming the judgment of conviction & sentence dated 28.5.2012/ 29.5.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in complaint No. 473 of 2011, whereby learned trial Court while holding petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 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 to the tune of Rs. 70,000/ to the complainant. 2. Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''complainant'') filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ( for short ''Act'') in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., alleging therein that accused in the year, 2010 approached him and stated that he is running Fruit and Vegetable Commissioner Agent Shop at Rohru and in case the complainant supplies his apple boxes to him, the same will be sold higher price as compared to other shops and commission agents. Complainant sent large number of apple cases to the accused, which were subsequently sold by him in the market. As per the complainant, aforesaid apples were sold at the price of Rs.1,40,000/ and qua the part payment accused issued cheque No.098116, amounting to 50,000/ in favour of the complainant. Accused also assured to pay an amount of Rs.90,000/ in cash within a short period. However, fact remains that on presentation, the said cheque was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Complainant served accused with legal notice, calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated period, but since accused failed to make the payment good within the prescribed period, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the appropriate Court of law. 3. Complainant served accused with legal notice, calling upon him to make the payment good within stipulated period, but since accused failed to make the payment good within the prescribed period, 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 28.5.2012 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 petitioneraccused preferred an appeal under Section 374(3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Additional Sessions JudgeII, Shimla, Circuit Court at Rohru, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 7.3.2014, as a result of which, judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below. 5. Record reveals that during the pendency of present petition, matter came to be referred to the mediation on the joint request having been made by learned counsel representing the parties. During the mediation proceedings, parties resolved to settle their dispute amicably. As per the settlement, petitioneraccused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.90,000/ to the complainant. 6. Today, during the proceedings of the case, Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that petitioner has come present and he has brought a sum of Rs.90,000/ to be paid to the complainant in terms of the settlement arrived before the learned Mediator. 7. Mr. D.S. Nainta, learned counsel representing the respondent, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to amicable settlement inter se parties stated on instruction of his client that in case a sum of Rs.90,000/ is paid to the respondent, respondent has no objection in compounding the offence. A sum of Rs. 90,000/ is handed over to Mr. D.S. Nainta, Advocate in cash by Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate in the open Court today. 8. In view of the aforesaid development, Mr. A sum of Rs. 90,000/ is handed over to Mr. D.S. Nainta, Advocate in cash by Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate in the open Court today. 8. In view of the aforesaid development, Mr. I.S. Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated that since entire amount stands paid to the respondent in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court below, instant case at hand can be ordered to be compounded in terms of section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as guidelines framed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. , (2010) 5 SCC 663 . 9. It may be noticed that 15% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.7500/ stands already deposited with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, as is evident from the receipt No.3193, dated 14.8.2018 issued by the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla,H.P. 10. 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 setaside. The petitioneraccused 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.