Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 715 (HP)

Ashok Kumar v. Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd

2018-04-23

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 1.9.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Shimla District Shimla, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. RBT-149-S/10 of 2014/2012, affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 4.2.2012/ 27.2.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla, in Criminal case No.2207-3 of 2010/2009, 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. 60, 000/- to the complainant. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that respondent No.1(hereinafter referred to as the ''complainant'') , which is a Non Banking Finance Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ''Accused'') in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that accused had raised loan of Rs. 65, 000/-from the complainant and he had agreed to repay the said loan amount alongwith interest in monthly installments. With a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, accused issued cheques bearing No.005659 and 005660, dated 8.8.2009 in favour of the complainant, however, facts remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheques were dishonoured on account of "insufficient funds" in the account of the accused. Accordingly, complainant got legal notice issued to the accused advising him to make the payment of the cheques amount within stipulated period. Since, the accused failed to make the payment within stipulated period, complainant was compelled to initiate the 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 complainant, held accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, vide judgment dated 4.2.2012/27.2.2012 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 petitioner-accused filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(II) Shimla, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. RBT-149-S/10 of 2014/2012. 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge(II) Shimla, which came to be registered as Cr. Appeal No. RBT-149-S/10 of 2014/2012. However, fact remains that same was dismissed, as a result of which, judgment of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court came to be upheld. Hence, the present criminal revision petition before this Court. 5. On 9.4.2018, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, stated that since the parties have settled the matter inter se them amicably and as such, 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 . Since, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 had no instruction, matter was adjourned for today''s date. 6. Today, Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel on the instructions of respondent No.1, duly acknowledged the factum with regard to the compromise arrived inter se the parties. He stated before this Court that entire amount in terms of the judgment passed by the learned courts below stands received by respondent No.1 and it has no objection in case the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial courts below, is quashed and set-aside 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. Consequently, in view of the compromise arrived inter se the parties, especially statement having been made by learned counsel for respondent No.1, 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. 8. 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.