Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 322 (HP)

Roop Lal v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

2025-03-10

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner-Roop Lal has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 25.08.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No. 10/10 of 2020, titled as Roop Lal Vs. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank. 2. By way of judgment dated 25.08.2022, the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed by the petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020, passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter called as the ‘trial Court’), in Case Nos. 102/3 of 2015, 606/2015, titled as Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank Vs. Roop Lal. 3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one year and to pay a compensation of Rs.20,06,724/- to the complainant. 4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred. 5. Now, the petitioner has moved application, bearing CrMP No.738 of 2025, under Section 147 of NI Act, for compounding of offence on the ground that the matter has been settled and the entire compensation amount has been deposited with the respondent-Bank. 6. Statements of the petitioner, as well as, of the Advocate, appearing for respondent-Bank, have been recorded, in which, they have deposed that the dispute, with regard to Cheque No.246825, dated 30.09.2015, has been settled between the parties. 7. Today i.e. 10.03.2025, Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the respondent-Bank, under instructions, has stated, regarding the factum, as to why, Bank has filed the complaint against the accused (petitioner), in which, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence have been passed, which have unsuccessfully been assailed, before the learned First Appellate Court. He has also deposed that the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and nothing is now due against him. 8. He has also deposed that the matter has been compromised with the petitioner and nothing is now due against him. 8. According to the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Bank, since, the entire amount of compensation has been paid by the petitioner, therefore, he has no objection, if the present revision petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are ordered to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 9. Today, petitioner is also present before this Court and he has also stated in the aforesaid terms. He has also deposed that on the basis of the compromise, the present petition may be allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, referred to above, and he may be acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 10. In addition to this, the petitioner has also put forward the indigent circumstances, by stating that some relaxation may be given in the compounding fee. 11. Apart from this, the petitioner-accused has also given an undertaking that he will deposit the compounding fee, within a period of three months from today and in case, he fails to deposit the compounding fee, within the stipulated period, the revision petition, may be treated as dismissed and in that eventuality, he will surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon him, by the learned trial Court. 12. Considering the statement of the parties, as well as, considering the fact that the matter has been settled between the accused (petitioner) and the complainant, application, bearing CrMP No.738 of 2025, is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020, passed by learned trial Court in case No.102/3 of 2015, 606/2015, which has been affirmed by learned First Appellate Court, in Criminal Appeal No.10/10 of 2020, vide judgment dated 25.08.2022, are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. His personal and surety bonds are discharged. 14. His personal and surety bonds are discharged. 14. However, this order shall be, subject to the deposit of 4% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee, with the Member Secretary, H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla, within a period of three months, from today. 15. It is further clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the compounding fee, as ordered by this Court, within a period of three months, then, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, by reviving the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2020, passed by learned trial Court and in that eventuality, he shall surrender before the learned trial Court to undergo the substantive sentence, imposed upon him, by the learned trial Court. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.