Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 717 (HP)

Amar Dass v. HDFC Bank Ltd.

2025-04-09

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Petitioner-Amar Dass has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition against the judgment dated 16.07.2024, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellate Court’), in Criminal Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2024, titled as ‘Amar Dass Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd.’. 2. By way of judgment dated 16.07.2024, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal, filed bythe petitioner, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2024, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter called as the ‘trial Court’), in Complaint No.768-3 of 2019, titled as ‘HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. Amar Dass’. 3. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2024, 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 six months and to pay a compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- to the complainant. 4. After dismissal of the appeal by the learned Appellate Court, the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred. 5. Now, the petitioner has moved application, bearing CrMP No.1280 of 2025, under Section 147 of NI Act, for compounding of offence on the ground that since, the entire loan amount has been settled by the petitioner, under OTS Scheme, as such, respondent-Bank has issued NOC to the petitioner and now, nothing is due against the petitioner. 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.997028, dated 18.06.2019, has been settled between the parties. 7. Today i.e. 09.04.2025, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, 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 Appellate Court. He has also deposed that the matter has now been settled with the petitioner. 8. He has also deposed that the matter has now been settled with the petitioner. 8. According to the learned counsel, appearing for the respondent-Bank, 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. Apart from this, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has further deposed that the respondent- Bank has no objection if the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, so deposited by the petitioner, with the learned trial Court, is released in favour of petitioner-Amar Dass. 10. 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. He has further deposed that since, the matter has been settled with the respondent-Bank, as such, the amount of Rs.1,70,000/-, which he has deposited with the learned trial Court, be released in his favour. 11. 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. 12. Apart from this, the petitioner-accused has also given an undertaking that he will deposit 50% of the compounding fee with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla and remaining 50% of the compounding fee with H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within a period of ten weeks 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. 13. 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.1280 of 2025, is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 14. 13. 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.1280 of 2025, is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to compound the offence. 14. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2024, passed by learned trial Court in Complaint Case No.768-3 of 2019, which has been affirmed by learned Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.30-S/10 of 2024, vide judgment dated 16.07.2024, 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. 15. However, this order shall be, subject to the deposit of 8% of the cheque amount, as compounding fee. 50% of the compounding fee be deposited with the H.P. State Legal Services Authority, Shimla and remaining 50% of the compounding fee be deposited with H.P. High Court Staff Welfare Organization, Shimla, within a period of ten weeks, from today. 16. It is further clarified that if the petitioner fails to deposit the compounding fee, as ordered by this Court, within a period of ten weeks, then, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, by reviving the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.03.2024, 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. The amount, i.e.Rs.1,70,000/-, deposited with the learned trial Court, by the petitioner, be released in his favour, on making appropriate application, as per Rules. 17. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.