Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 104 (HP)

Surinder Kumar v. Nishant Arora

2020-01-08

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Instant Criminal Revision petition filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment, dated 7.8.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Palampur) District Kangra, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 2-P/X/2017, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.5.2017/11.5.2017, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., in criminal case No. 68-III/2013, 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 to the tune of Rs. 70,000/-. 2. Precisely, the facts as emerge from the record are that the respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., alleging therein that he had lent sum of Rs. 58,000/- to the petitioner-accused (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'), on his request vide cheques No. 32001832 and 32001831, amounting to Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively. Accused with a view to discharge his aforesaid liability, issued cheque bearing No. 814578, dated 5.3.2013, amounting to Rs. 58,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Palampur in favour of the complainant. However, fact remains that on presentation, aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since having received legal notice, 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 competent 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/order dated 8.5.2017/11.5.2017 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 preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Palampur) District Kangra, H.P., which also came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 7.8.2019, 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 has 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. Learned counsel representing the parties on instructions state that during the pendency of the present petition, parties have resolved to settle their dispute amicably inter se them. Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that petitioner shall have no objection in case the entire amount of compensation lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel representing the complainant on instructions states that in case the amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant, he shall have no objection in case the prayer made on behalf of the accused for compounding the offence alleged to have been committed by him, is accepted. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court sees no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the learned counsel representing the petitioner that in view of the amicable settlement arrived inter se parties, this Court can proceed to compound the offence while exercising power under section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and as per the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. : (2010) 5 SCC 663 . Hon'ble Apex Court in Damodar S. Prabhu case (Supra) has categorically held that Court while exercising power under Section 147 of the Act, can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction by the courts below. 7. 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. 8. The amount lying deposited with the learned trial Court is ordered to be released in favour of the complainant on his making formal application. The petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.