Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 468 (HP)

Sukh Ram v. Chaman Lal

2018-03-26

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J —Cr.Mp (M) No. 42 of 2018. Shri Maan Singh, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. He stated that he does not intend to file reply to this application and has no objection, in case delay in maintaining the instant criminal revision petition is condoned. Accordingly, in view of the statement having been made by learned Counsel representing the respondent as well as the averments contained in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 4 days in maintaining the present petition is condoned. Criminal Revision Petition be registered. Application stands disposed of. Criminal Revision No. 77 of 2018. 2. Instant Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as ''Cr.P.C.'') is directed against the judgment dated 05.10.2017, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2016, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.09.2016, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, HP, in Complaint No. 388- 1/2010, whereby learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as ''the accused'') guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,25, 000/- to the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts, as emerged from the record, are that the respondent (hereinafter referred to as ''the complainant'') , filed complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu against the accused, alleging therein that the accused entered into an agreement with the complainant to sell the land, as described in the judgment passed by the trail Court, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,60, 000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00, 000/- as earnest money to the accused at the time of the execution of the agreement and accused agreed to execute and register the sale deed in his favour on or before 02.03.2010. On the said date, the complainant remained present in Tehsil Office from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., but the accused did not turn up to perform his part of the aforesaid agreement. On the said date, the complainant remained present in Tehsil Office from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., but the accused did not turn up to perform his part of the aforesaid agreement. Subsequently, to discharge his liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 989660, dated 03.03.2010, amounting to Rs. 1,00, 000/-, in favour of the complainant, drawn at State Bank of Patiala. However, the fact remains that on presentation, cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Since, the accused failed to make the payment good despite opportunity having been afforded by the complainant by way of legal notice, he was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, in the competent Court of law. 4. Subsequently, 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, hereinabove. 5. 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 (3) of the Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal 37 of 2016, 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 petitioneraccused approached this Court by way of instant Criminal Revision Petition, praying therein for his acquittal after quashing and setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 6. Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioneraccused, who is present in the Court, stated that entire payment in terms of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court stands paid to the respondent-complainant and as such, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below, may be ordered to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent, on the instructions of the complainant, who is present in Court, stated that since the entire amount has been paid by the petitioner-accused, the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Courts below, may be ordered to be quashed and set aside. 8. This Court, with a view to ascertain genuineness and correctness of aforesaid statements having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties, also recorded the statement of the complainant-respondent, who stated, on oath, that he has entered into an compromise with the petitioner-accused and has received a sum of Rs. 1,25, 000/- in terms of the judgments of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court and he has no objection, in case the judgment of convictions, supra, are quashed and set aside. He further stated that he has entered into the compromise with his own free will without there being any pressure. 9. Accordingly, in view of the submissions having been made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the statement having been made by the complainant, on oath, this court sees no impediment in accepting the aforesaid prayer having been made by the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis. Accordingly, the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Courts below can be quashed and set-aside 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 . 10. Consequently, in view of the above judgment, the impugned 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. 11. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of alongwith pending application(s) , if any.